Redding City Council
July 15, 2025

Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: ^Notice of Exemption (4.11(c)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5593, Cape Seal 2025)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve a $100,000 increase to the Redding Power Plant Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project (Project), Bid Schedule No. 5563, to complete unforeseen conditions identified during construction:
(1) Increase of $26,715 to the construction management budget, bringing the construction management total to $45,715; and
(2) Increase of $73,285 to the construction contingency budget, bringing the construction contingency budget to $101,285.

Fiscal Impact
The Redding Power Plant Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project (Project) is being funded by the City of Redding Electric Utility (REU). The $100,000 cost increase will bring the total project costs amount to be $351,939.53 which is within the project approved budget of $450,000.

Current
Authorized
Requested
Increase
Newly
Authorized
Project Development $18,000 $0 $18,000
Contract $186,939.53 $0 $186,939.53
Contingency $28,000.00 $73,285.00 $101,285.00
Contract Admin.,
Inspection, Testing $19,000.00 $26,715.00 $45,715.00
Total $251,939.53 $100,000.00 $351,939.53
MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Approve Increase to Project Cost for Redding Power Plant Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project
Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 250
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to approve the request and provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
On March 11, 2025, the City Manager awarded (attached) the construction contract for the project to ARB, Inc. in the amount of $186,939.53. This project was awarded in accordance with the City of Redding’s (City) criteria for informal award.

The project consists of inspection of a 10-inch natural gas pipeline at three locations along the shoulder of Clear Creek Road ranging approximately 1.5 to 2 miles east of the Redding Power Plant to verify results of a previously performed In-Line Inspection (ILI), performed by others.

In general, the inspection work includes excavation to expose the pipeline, abrasive blasting to strip the pipeline coating, verifying anomalies and confirming ILI report data with 3D and ultrasonic scanning, re-coating the pipe, backfilling and surface restoration, and providing inspection reports to the City. All work on the project will be performed while the gas pipeline remains in service.

During the course of construction, unforeseen conditions in the field warranted changes to meet the projects intent and to complete the project in a timely manner as per the project specifications. These changes include addressing excessive ground water issues; removal of existing slurry pipe encasement, pipeline repair material, and a concrete slab over the pipeline; and the removal and replacement of unknown drainage infrastructure and an existing corrugated metal pipe section.

All these unforeseen conditions were addressed as they were found by directing the contractor to proceed with the work (including additional items of work to remedy the unforeseen conditions) so that no potential impacts were created for the Power Plant during peak summer time energy demands. Once the excavation and pipeline exposure processes were started, the City was required to minimize both pipeline exposure and pipeline submergence without the proper coating on the pipeline. Leaving the pipeline exposed longer than required would have created issues that were anticipated to make it more difficult to apply the planned pipeline coating at a later date as well as cause additional issues to the bare section of the pipeline being within a corrosive environment. Additionally, due to the gas pipeline being Department of Transportation (DOT) regulated, the contract had to meet regulatory protective coating requirements as per 49 CFR 192.461. Based on the potential for additional pipeline corrosion, compliance obligations and public safety issues with each excavation site being opened up with the high-pressure gas main exposed, it was necessary to proceed with the extra work prior to obtaining Council approval for the additional funding needed to successfully complete the project.

Environmental Review
On December 11, 2024, the City’s Environmental Team had determined that the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301(a) – Existing Facilities. No further action is required.

Packet Pg. 251
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project Page 3 Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This agenda item is a routine operation item.

Attachments
^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map
Packet Pg. 252
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: ^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map (4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project) Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: ^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map (4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project) Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: ^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map (4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project) Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: ^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map (4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project) Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: ^CM Award/Bid Tab/NoE/Location Map (4.11(d)--Approve costs for RPP Natural Gas Pipeline Inspections Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution of Intention to form Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (SSMD) 01-25, Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision, and approve the following:
(1) The Engineer's Report as filed with the City Clerk; (2) Confirmation of the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer's Report; (3) Mailing of notices and ballots; and
(4) Setting the Public Hearing and Election for September 2, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California, regarding the formation of Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision into SSMD 01–25 pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, Maintenance Districts, Streets and Highways Code Section 5820, et seq. and Government Code 53753(b).

Fiscal Impact
Generally, Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts (SSMD) are self-supporting, and there are no fiscal impacts to the City of Redding’s (City) General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to decline to create a new district and direct staff to make changes to the Engineer’s Report. This alternative will require finding an alternative funding source to provide the required maintenance so as not to become a General Fund obligation.

Background
SSMD 01-25 is being formed to comply with the conditions of approval for the Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision (AMND-2017-00160 / S-15-07 / PD-11-07) located off Lower Springs Road north of Highway 299. A conventional gravity sewer system is impracticable for this subdivision; therefore, Condition of Approval No. 65 requires the developer to create an SSMD to fund the MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 4.11(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(e)--Resolution of Intention to form Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (SSMD) 01-25, Salt Creek Unit 4
Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 258
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing Page 2 operation and maintenance costs of a sanitary sewer lift station with the formation, levy, and collection of assessments being pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911. Small lift stations that serve only a specific development are not commonly used in the public system; therefore, a SSMD will ensure that the maintenance responsibilities are borne by the parcels to be created by the Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision and not by other utility customers. The proposed formation will affect a total of 70 proposed residential units.

The estimated cost of SSMD 01-25 for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is $23,317 which includes maintenance expenses, administrative expenses, and an allowable district reserve as detailed in Part B of the attached Engineer’s Report. The formation will affect a total of 70 proposed residential lots (benefit units). The proposed assessment per benefit unit is $333.10.

To provide for this formation, the Council needs to adopt the attached resolution accomplishing the following:

1. Declaring the Council’s intention to form Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-25;

2. Approval of the Engineer’s Report;

3. Confirmation of the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer’s Report; and

4. Approval of the mailing of notices and ballots to the property owners within the Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision to approve the formation of Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-25, approving the proposed annual assessment of $333.10 per benefit unit, and setting the public hearing for September 2, 2025.

Should the Council approve the resolution; staff will move forward with formation procedures to establish SSMD 01-25. Pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, the Council must find that there is no protest against formation by more than half of the owners within the district.

Therefore, if a simple majority of the ballots returned are in favor of formation, the Council may proceed to form the district. If the formation is approved, results will be provided to the Shasta County Assessor's Office and the new levy will be placed on the owners' property tax bills in December 2026.

The assessment for SSMD 01-25, will include a contingency for the Council to annually consider a cost escalation tied to the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index” from the most recent March Engineering News Record effective July 1, 2027, and every July thereafter.

Environmental Review
This activity is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.

No further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
Packet Pg. 259
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing Page 3 SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report
Packet Pg. 260
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Redding
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City Clerk
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding CA 96001
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___
SANITARY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING:
(1) DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO FORM SANITARY SEWER
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-25.
(2) CONFIRMING THE MAP OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND
APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT.
(3) APPROVING THE MAILING OF NOTICES AND BALLOTS.
(4) SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2025

AND ELECTION REGARDING SANITARY SEWER
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-25.

WHEREAS:

A. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk setting forth a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed assessment district and any zones therein, any bonds or notes to be issued, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the proposed district.

B. The purpose of the proposed district is to fund the operation and maintenance costs of the sanitary sewer pump station as conditioned by the Salt Creek Unit 4 Subdivision (AMND2017-00160, S-15-07, PD-11-07) Conditions of Approval. Condition 65 requires that the developer creates a sanitary sewer maintenance district to fund the operation and maintenance costs of a sanitary sewer lift station for lots served by a pump station.

C. The City Council proposes to levy the proposed special assessment based on a uniform special benefit and assessment methodology over all developable lots within the proposed district.

Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) D. Only costs for maintenance and repairs to the sewer lift station, including electric, water and data charges, replacement of pumps, force mains and appurtenances, maintenance of any buildings or structures housing sewer lift station facilities; other improvements to remove or cover graffiti, administrative costs; and such other maintenance and incidental expenses as are authorized by Streets and Highways Code 5821 will be assessed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each fiscal year’s assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the "20 Cities Construction Costs Index" from the most recent March Engineering News Record and shall become effective July 1, 2027, and every July 1 thereafter.

E. This resolution satisfies those requirements set forth in the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, Maintenance Districts (Streets and Highways Code Section 5820 et. seq.) and the notice requirements set forth in Government Code 53753(b).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are adopted herein.

2. The City Council hereby declares its intention to form Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-25.

3. The City Council hereby approves the Engineer’s Report, as filed with the City Clerk, and thereby confirms and adopts the map of the assessment district contained in the Engineer’s Report.

4. The City Council finds that the Engineer’s Report has fairly and properly apportioned the costs of the improvements to each residential unit in the district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each benefit unit from the improvements.

5. Notices and ballots will be mailed upon acceptance of this Resolution, and public hearing and election will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, at the hour of 6 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California to address the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

The proposed annual assessment for the entire district is $23,317.00 and the annual assessment per Benefit Unit (each parcel) is $333.10. The reason for the assessment and the underlying basis for computing the amount of the assessment is set forth in the Engineer’s Report which can be obtained from the City Clerk at the above address. The assessment is subject to annual inflationary increases in accordance with cost of living index known as the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index. The annual assessments shall have an indefinite term and will continue until such time as the district is disestablished, if ever.

6. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 5827 and Government Code section 53753, protests against the formation of the maintenance district may be filed with the City Clerk Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) or presented no later than the conclusion of the public hearing set by this resolution. A ballot must be filled out and returned the same no later than the close of the public hearing referenced above. The assessment will not be imposed if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, with ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________
JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ____________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) Sanitary Sewer
Maintenance District
SSMD 01-25
Salt Creek
Engineer's Report
Fiscal Year 2026-27
Prepared under the provisions
of the Improvement Act of 1911of the
California Streets & Highways Code

Prepared by
Michael R. Webb, RCE
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
July 2025
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District - District 01-25 Page 1 Certificates
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated this _____________ day of July, 2025.

By:

Michael R. Webb, RCE 73986
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report and Assessment Diagram was filed with me on the ______ day of _____________, 2025.

City Clerk of the City of Redding
County of Shasta
By: ______________________________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Redding, on the ________ day of __________________, 2025.

City Clerk of the City of Redding
County of Shasta
By: ______________________________________________
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District - District 01-25 Page 2 Overview
The purpose of this report is the formation of Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-25 “District” and setting the budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and will be administered under provisions of the City of Redding Municipal Code Section, the “Improvement Act of 1911” (California Streets & Highway Code §5820 et. seq.), “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.”
This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

Part A: Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
The District is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, Stateof California.The District boundary generally encompasses the Salt Creek Heights Unit 4 Subdivision (AMND-2017- 00160 / S-15-07 / PD-11-07) and is depicted on the Part A Attachment.

Part B: District Improvements and Estimated Maintenance Expenses (See Part B Attachment)
The estimated maintenance expenses for the District include the total costs of maintaining and servicing the District’s sanitary sewer lift station components and force main. The plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Engineering Division.

The initial expense to install the lift station and force main will be borne by the developer at time of development. No bonds will be issued in connection with this District.

Part C: Sanitary Sewer District Assessment and Levy Calculation The assessments are authorized to be indexed (increased) annually based on the published 20 Cities Construction Cost Index compiled byEngineering News Record.

The actual per lot levy is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each benefit unit (total funds needed divided by number of benefit units) and the maximum authorized assessment. The levy is the amount that will be assessed on each benefit unit and will be calculated on a yearly basis.

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

Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District - District 01-25 Page 3 Part D: Analysis of Benefits of Properties Being Assessed Construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were conditions of development forthesubdivision. The lift station is necessary to convey sewage generated by the subdivision to the existing public sewer system within Lower Springs Road. These are special benefits conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. These “special benefits” received by the identified parcels are above and beyond the City’s standard level of service and are exclusive of the general benefits provided to the public at large or properties located outside the District.

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

The total number of benefit units is 70. The total estimated expenses from the Part B attachment is $23,317.00. Therefore, the maximum assessment per benefit unit is $333.10 for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

Part F: Assessed Parcels
(See Part F Attachment)
The Part F Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2024-25. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01
-19
Maintenance District- District 01-19
Page4

PART A ATTACHMENT
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-19 Maintenance District - District 01-19

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2026-27
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-25
Salt Creek Unit 4
FY 2026-27
Estimated Expenses
Section I Estimated District Maintenance Expenses

1. Lift Station Operational Maintenance 8,800
Performed by Public Works staff

2. Utility Costs 2,800
Electric, Water and Data (Alarm and SCADA)

3. Estimated Cost of Scheduled Replacement Parts
(Replacement costs over a 10 year period = 28,015)
Year 1 (10% of 28,015) 2,802

4. Outside Services 1,500
Total 15,902
Section II Estimated District Administrative Expenses
Administrative Costs:

Public Works Department
Purchasing Department
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Treasurer
Total 1,500
Section III County Administrative Fee 115
Total Estimated Expenses 17,517
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-19 Maintenance District - District 01-19

Section III Levy Calculation
A. District Balance as of June 30, 2025 0
B. Total Estimated Expenses for FY 2026-27 17,517
C. District Reserve (50% of Maintenance Expenses Lines 1 & 2) 5,800 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve for FY 2026-27 [(B: Expenses + C: Reserve) - A: Balance] 23,317 E. Number of Lots to be levied (Benefit Units) 70
F. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed 333.10
G. Current Lot Levy 333.10
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing) City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-19 Maintenance District - District 01-19

PART F ATTACHMENT
Assessment Roll Fiscal Year 2024-25
Subdivision
District __Lot Number APN Subdivision Benefit Units Unit Rate Total __Owner 01-25 1 through 70 204-030-074 Salt Creek Unit 4 70 $333.10 $23,317.00 Sierra Pacific Land & Timber
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: SSMD 1-25 Engineer's Report (4.11(e)--Reso for SSMD 01-25 Salt Creek Unit 4 to set public hearing)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following actions relative to Consulting and Professional Services Contract (C-9509) for the Victor and Cypress Avenues Active Transportation Project:
(1) Approve the Second Amendment to the Consulting and Professional Services Contract (C-9509) with GHD Inc., in the amount of $65,733.89 for a total not-to-exceed fee of $1,873,227.18;
(2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Amendment; and (3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to approve additional contract amendments not to exceed $50,000.

Fiscal Impact
The total project cost of the Victor and Cypress Avenues Active Transportation Project (Project) is estimated at approximately $12.5 million dollars. The project is being funded by multiple sources including Active Transportation Program funds-$7,822,000, Highway Infrastructure Program funds-$1,448,775, Carbon Reduction Program funds-$500,000, and the City of Redding’s (City) Streets Division will fill the remaining gap. The total project cost includes a consultant contract with GHD Inc., (GHD) to provide engineering and environmental services from design through construction. This amendment will increase GHD’s consultant contract by $65,733.89 to a total contract amount of $1,873,227.18.

The table below is a summary of amended costs to GHD’s consultant contract.

Original
Contract
Amount
1st Amendment 2nd Amendment
Adjustment
Revised
Total Adjustment Revised Total
$1,707,992.29 $99,501.00 $1,807,493.29 $65,733.89 $1,873,227.18 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Consulting and Professional Services Contract (C-9509) for the Victor and Cypress Avenue Active Transportation Project Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 273
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509) Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to authorize the amendment and provide staff with an alternate direction. Without the proposed amendment, GHD will not be able to complete the design or provide services during the construction phase of the project. This alternative would delay the project and may jeopardize federal funding.

Background Analysis
In September 2022, an engineering and environmental services contract was executed with GHD for the project. In December 2024, the first contract amendment was executed to increase the project funding for unanticipated environmental tasks including preparation of an Initial Site Assessment, a Visual Impact Assessment Report, and additional services related to the Cultural Resources Report. Once again, the contract needs to be amended to provide funding for tasks related to environmental documentation including preparation of a Hazardous Materials Assessment Report and extensive document review and coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance, as well as additional analysis associated with hydraulics and the pedestrian bridge design.

This project currently has no contiguous active transportation network due to multiple sidewalk gaps, inconsistent bike lanes, congested intersections, and unpaved trails. Once constructed, the project will improve upon all of these deficiencies by completing the following items of work:
construct shared use paths; eliminate sidewalk gaps; install accessible curb ramps; add buffered bike lanes; install rectangular rapid flashing beacons; construct a dedicated intersection at Hartnell and Victor; construct a roundabout at the intersection of Victor and Cypress Avenues; install pedestrian safety lighting; and provide landscaping which will create shade along the route.

The amendment has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.

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

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

Attachments
Second Amendment
C-9509 Amendment 1
Contract C-9509
Packet Pg. 274
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Second Amendment (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: C-9509 Amendment 1 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509)) Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Contract C-9509 (4.11(f)--Approve the Second Amendment to Contract (C-9509))

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following related to Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs):
(1) Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to LMDs A, B, and C authorizing the following:
(a) Confirming the maps of the assessment districts as contained in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 for LMDs A, B, and C;
(b) Approving and confirming annual assessments and levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2025-26 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and (2) Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to LMDs authorizing the following:
(a) Confirming the maps of the assessment districts as contained in the Engineer’s Reports for LMDs D, E, F, G, H, H1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, S1, T, U, V, W, 01-06, 02-06, 03-06, 04-06, 05-06, 06-06, 07-06, 08-06, 09-06, 11-06, 01-07, 02-07, 02-09, 03-09, 01-11, 02-11, 03-11, 01-13, 02-14, 03-14, 01-15, 02-16, 03- 16, 01-17, 01-19, 02-19, 01-20, 01-22 and 01-23;
(b) Approving and confirming annual assessments and levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2025-26 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and (3) Authorize the City Manager to appropriate the revenues and expenses accordingly by each LMD associated with this report.

Fiscal Impact
Approval of the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) provides the revenue to fund the maintenance of designated landscape areas throughout the City of Redding (City). The report also includes three neighborhood parks – funding for these park properties was included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Biennial Budget.

MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 6.1
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.1--Public Hearings (2) to consider adopting Resolutions (2) regarding Landscape Maintenance Districts Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Travis Menne, Director of
Community Services
Packet Pg. 367
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 2 Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could either decline to adopt the resolutions, which would stop the collection of revenue for the districts to fund maintenance expenses, or provide staff with alternate direction.

Background/Analysis
The City utilizes LMDs to fund the maintenance of landscaped areas that directly benefit residential and commercial developments. The use of LMDs is common in cities throughout California. The districts are established when projects are approved. The annual cost of the LMD is then divided up and assessed to the affected parcels through the property tax statements. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the Council to hold a public hearing regarding the adoption of annual assessments and levies for lots within each of the City's existing LMDs.

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

For the purpose of this report, "Benefit Unit" is the individual parcel benefitting from the LMD.

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

Assessments for LMDs A, B, or C are flat for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as no annual inflationary adjustments (note table below) were built in at the time these districts were formed. Without additional funding, resources are limited, and the level of care suffers in these districts. Staff is working to re-establish these districts with inflationary adjustments included, but this requires a majority affirmative vote of the homeowners. The remainder of the LMD A and B neighborhoods will be either restructured or dissolved within the next few years, depending on the outcome of the vote. In the meantime, the cost of normal maintenance exceeds the district's revenues. Maintenance efforts continue at a severely reduced service level in Fiscal Year 2025-

26. LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
A Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $29.46 $29.46 B Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $71.00 $71.00 C Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $7.46 $0.00 Packet Pg. 368
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 3 The assessment for Districts D, E, F, G, H, H1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, S1, T, U, V, W, 01- 06, 02-06, 03-06, 04-06, 05-06, 06-06, 07-06, 08-06, 09-06, 11-06, 01-07, 02-07, 02-09, 03-09, 01-11, 02-11, 03-11, 01-13, 02-14, 03-14, 01-15, 02-16, 03-16, 01-17, 02-19, 01-20, 01-22 and 01-23 have been adjusted by an annual inflation adjustment which is tied to the "20 Cities Construction Cost Index" from the most recent March Engineering News Record. The increase this year is 1.9 percent.

As shown in the table below, the calculated levies reflect the proposed maintenance needs of the districts for the Fiscal Year 2025-26. In most cases, the proposed levy is less than the assessment because the maintenance needs of these districts can be met at the lower levy amount. The Shasta County Assessor requires that levy amounts be an even number for processing purposes. Some levies have been rounded down $0.01 to meet this requirement. LMD B district has a negative balance this fiscal year. With additional reductions in maintenance and expenses this year, the district will return to a slightly positive balance. LMD Nicolet O also continues to have a negative balance due to a prior year's insurance payment posted in error and reversed out in a prior fiscal cycle.

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

LMD District
Name General Location
Proposed
Assessment
($)
Proposed
Levy ($)
D The Vistas
North of Quartz Hill Road at the
intersection with Terra Nova
Drive.
953.11 295.72
E Blue Shield At the intersection of Bechelli
Lane and South Bonnyview Road. 11,743.70 6,316.00
F Placer Pines West of Placer Street at the
intersection with Boston Avenue. 253.14 160.62
G Quail Run South of Marlene Avenue at the
intersection with Cockerill Drive. 478.25 273.14
H
Clover Creek
Village
West of Airport Road at the
intersection with Preserve
Boulevard.
248.00 199.20
H1
Clover Creek
Village, Zone
1 West of Airport Road at the
intersection with Preserve
Boulevard.
147.29 95.22
J
Sunset
Avenues,
Units 1 and 2
North of State Route 299 at the
intersection with Buenaventura
Boulevard.
831.23 476.80
Packet Pg. 369
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 4 LMD District
Name General Location
Proposed
Assessment
($)
Proposed
Levy ($)
K Nob Hill West of Almond Avenue near the
intersection with Shasta Street. 413.92 349.32
L Terra Vista
East of Churn Creek Road at the
intersection with Loma Vista
Drive.
630.84 309.74
M
Parkview/
Leland
Between Lanning Avenue and
Leland Avenue south of Fell
Street.
431.54 361.54
N
Villages at
Shasta View
Gardens
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road. 84.10 62.06
O
Nicolet
Estates
West of East Bonnyview Road at
the intersection with Nicolet Lane. 1,468.33 825.00
P
Mill Pond
Estates
East of East Bonnyview Road at
the south end of Mill Pond Lane. 911.57 520.00
Q
Clover Acres,
Units 1 and 2
Near the intersection of
Wimbledon Drive and Agassi
Street.
319.19 226.40
R Cerro Vista South of Radio Lane at the
intersection with Cerro Lane. 449.36 319.66
S
Fleur Du Lac, West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Voltaire Way. 293.77 208.10
S1 Fleur Du Lac,
Zone 1
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Goren Court. 613.59 337.10
T
Redwood
Meadows
At the intersection of Marijean
Way and Redwood Boulevard. 1,226.02 625.60
U
Bel Air
Estates
West of the intersection with
Quartz Hill Road and Stone
Canyon Drive.
118.65 0.00
V
Lakeside
Avenues
East of Buenaventura Boulevard at
the intersection with Lakeside
Drive.
833.19 364.10
W
Crown
Meadows
Estates
South of Girvan Road at the
intersection with Pit Road. 204.24 140.12
Packet Pg. 370
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 5 LMD District
Name General Location
Proposed
Assessment
($)
Proposed
Levy ($)
01-06
Sonata
(Tarmac
Ridge Villas)
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road. 346.98 157.22
02-06 Galaxy Way
At the west end of Galaxy Way at
the intersection with Morningsun
Drive.
572.78 130.60
03-06 Hope
Subdivision
East of Hope Lane at the
intersection with Carnegie Drive. 624.73 138.96
04-06 Rivercrest
Estates
East of Bechelli Lane south of the
intersection with Woodacre Drive. 529.87 318.06
05-06 Monopoly
Estates
Along Boardwalk Place at the
intersection with Wyndham Lane. 1,153.28 0.00
06-06 Lowe's HIW North of East Cypress Avenue at
the intersection with Alfreda Way. 29,407.24 15,097.00
07-06 Buckeye Pines West of Lake Boulevard at the
intersection with Wilmington Way. 814.39 519.70
08-06
Shastina
Ranch
(Stonesfair/
Silverstone
annex.)
Along Shasta View Drive from
Rancho Road to Airport Road. 825.15 221.46
09-06 Buenaventura
Park
South of Waushara Avenue at the
intersection of Piper Way. 716.58 471.00
11-06 Tuscany
Villas
East of Gold Hills Drive at the
intersection with Oasis Road. 405.00 0.00
01-07
State
Compensation
Insurance
East of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection of Tarmac Road. 940.61 940.60
02-07 Hilltop Center East of Hilltop Drive at the
intersection of Browning Street. 905.98 905.98
02-09 Placer West
On the southerly side of Placer
Road between Mary Lake Drive
and O'Connor Avenue.
1,300.67 635.38
03-09
*Highland
Park
Just east of Interstate 5, south of
State Route 299E, west of Churn
Creek Road, and north of
376.57 334.74
Packet Pg. 371
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 6 LMD District
Name General Location
Proposed
Assessment
($)
Proposed
Levy ($)
Browning Street.
01-11
River Ridge
Park/Terrace
and Stanford
Manor
On the south side of Quartz Hill
Road, easterly one-quarter mile
from River Ridge Drive to 150 feet
west of White Sail Drive
143.64 123.04
02-11 River Park
Highlands
At the intersection of Benton Drive
and River Park Drive, and along
River Park Drive.
113.06 113.04
03-11
River Heights
and River
Heights PD
At the intersection of Hilltop Drive
and River Bend Road, and along
River Bend Road.
341.45 246.06
01-13 College
Highlands
On the west side of Shasta View
Drive between Simpson Boulevard
and Palacio Drive. 301.55 269.88
02-14 Westside
At the intersection of Placer Street
and Boston Avenue, White Hawk
Estates, Units 2 and 3, are
generally located at the
intersection of Teton Drive and
Crescent Moon Drive, and Ridge
View Estates are located at the
intersection of Placer Road and
Cumberland Drive

95.35 91.52
03-14 Browning
Pointe
On the west side of Browning
Street Boulevard from Old Alturas
Road to Friendly Road.
778.74 778.74
01-15 Hidden Hills At Bodenhamer Blvd and
Rollingview Drive. 88.73 61.58
02-16 Shasta View
SW
On the west side of Shasta View
from Castlewood Drive to Pacific
Avenue.

78.33 76.44
03-16 River Pointe Calgary Place and Beretta Lane
and a portion of Oxbow Street. 209.28 192.14
01-17
*Salt Creek
Heights
The subdivision north of
Sunflower at the intersection of
Buenaventura. 545.06 545.06
01-19 Monroe
East of Shasta View Drive on the
south side of Oasis Road on the
center medians and the north side
539.39 539.38
Packet Pg. 372
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 7 LMD District
Name General Location
Proposed
Assessment
($)
Proposed
Levy ($)
of Oasis Road.
02-19
Center Court
Village (Elk
Crest annex.)
At both parkway strips of Palm
Springs Drive, at the corners of
Sampras Drive and Goolagong
Drive, and at the corners at
Goolagong Drive and Argyle
Road.
275.81 234.00
01-20
Rio
(Wyndham
Pointe)
Along Wyndham Lane, crossing
Thea Drive, a section of the
parkway strips at Thea Drive, and
at the intersection of Ginny Court
and Lagoon Drive.
923.65 307.94
01-22 Luke Estates
On the south side of Old Alturas
Road, east of Oak Mesa Lane, and
west of Shasta View Drive.
1,603.84 1,080.66
01-23 Rancho Road
Industrial
Located on Rancho Road, east of
Airport Road and west of Old
Oregon Trail.
3,372.16 1,951.94
*LMD 3-09 Highland Park and LMD 1-17 Salt Creek Heights contain lots with single-family residential detached and attached units. Lots with detached units are assigned one benefit unit and lots with attached units are assigned 0.8 benefit units as apportioned at the time of district formation.

Environmental Review
The recommended actions do not constitute a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), finding that the project is an organizational or administrative activity of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Packet Pg. 373
Report to Redding City Council July 9, 2025
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 8 Attachments
^Resolution LMD ABC
^Resolution All Other LMDs
LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26
LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26
LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26
LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 Packet Pg. 374
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING (1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEER’S REPORTS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK; AND
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE
LEVY AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 22500 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE;
WHEREAS:

A. On June 17, 2025, by Resolution No. 2025-040, the City Council approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below and gave notice of the time and place of the July 15, 2025, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

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

C. The purpose of these Districts is to provide maintenance to those landscaping improvements required within the public rights-of-way and/or easements by the conditions of development approval for each District and the general locations as outlined in the table below.

D. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

E. This Resolution is made in satisfaction of those requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code Section 22631.

F. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California, on July 15, 2025, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

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

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

7. The assessments against each developable lot or remaining parcel located within the Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 are confirmed, adopted, and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

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

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

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

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

Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) B Miscellaneous $71.00 $71.00
General Location:

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

C Miscellaneous $7.46 $0.00
General Location:

Blossom Park, Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, R1 and R3, generally located near the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Constitution Way; Churn Creek Park, including Unit R1, generally located near the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Constitution Way; Fairway Estates, Units 1 and R1, generally located at the east end of Poppy Hills Drive; Forest Hills Estates, Units 1 and R1, generally located at the south end of Heritagetown Drive; and Potter Manor, Unit 1, generally located at the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Galaxy Way I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 15th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:

SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING (1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEERS’ REPORTS ON FILE WITH THE
CITY CLERK; AND
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE
LEVY AMOUNTS FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 22500 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
WHEREAS:

A. On June 17, 2025, by Resolution No. 2025-041, the City Council approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below and gave notice of the time and place of the July 15, 2025, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

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

C. The purpose of these Districts is to provide maintenance to those landscaping improvements required within the public rights-of-way and/or easements by the conditions of development approval for each District and the general locations as outlined in the table below.

D. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.

E. This Resolution is made in satisfaction of those requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code Section 22631.

F. The assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 are not an increase within the meaning of Streets and Highways Code §22630.5 because the cost-of-living adjustment provided for herein was approved at the time of the formation of the Districts.

G. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California, on July 15, 2025, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessments.

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

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

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

2. The Report of the Engineer, on file with the City Clerk, contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) assessments upon the assessable acres and remaining parcels within the District.

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

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

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

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

7. The assessments against each developable lot or remaining parcel located within the Districts for Fiscal Year 2025-26 are confirmed, adopted, and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

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

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

LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
D The Vistas North of Quartz Hill Road at the
intersection with Terra Nova Drive 953.11 295.72
E Blue Shield At the intersection of Bechelli Lane and
South Bonnyview Road
11,743.70 6,316.00
F Placer Pines West of Placer Street at the intersection with Boston Avenue 253.14 160.62
G Quail Run South of Marlene Avenue at the
intersection with Cockerill Drive 478.25 273.14
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
H
Clover Creek
Village
West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard 248.00 199.20
H1 Clover Creek
Village, Zone 1
West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard 147.29 95.22
J
Sunset
Avenues, Units
1 and 2
North of State Route 299 at the intersection
with Buenaventura Boulevard 831.23 476.80
K Nob Hill West of Almond Avenue near the
intersection with Shasta Street 413.92 349.32
L Terra Vista East of Churn Creek Road at the
intersection with Loma Vista Drive 630.84 309.74
M
Parkview/
Leland
Between Lanning Avenue and Leland
Avenue south of Fell Street 431.54 361.54
N
Villages at
Shasta View
Gardens
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road 84.10 62.06
O Nicolet Estates West of East Bonnyview Road at the
intersection with Nicolet Lane 1,468.33 825.00
P
Mill Pond
Estates
East of East Bonnyview Road at the south
end of Mill Pond Lane 911.57 520.00
Q
Clover Acres,
Units 1 and 2
Near the intersection of Wimbledon Drive
and Agassi Street 319.19 226.40
R Cerro Vista South of Radio Lane at the intersection
with Cerro Lane 449.36 319.66
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
S Fleur Du Lac West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Voltaire Way 293.77 208.10
S1
Fleur du Lac,
Zone 1
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Goren Court 613.59 337.10
T
Redwood
Meadows
At the intersection of Marijean Way and
Redwood Boulevard 1,226.02 625.60
U Bel Air Estates West of the intersection with Quartz Hill Road and Stone Canyon Drive 118.65 0.00
V
Lakeside
Avenues
East of Buenaventura Boulevard at the
intersection with Lakeside Drive 833.19 364.10
W
Crown
Meadows
Estates
South of Girvan Road at the intersection
with Pit Road 204.24 140.12
01-06 Tarmac Ridge
Villas (Sonata)
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road 346.98 157.22
02-06 Galaxy Way At the west end of Galaxy Way at the
intersection with Morningsun Drive 572.78 130.60
03-06 Hope
Subdivision
East of Hope Lane at the intersection with
Carnegie Drive 624.73 138.96
04-06 Rivercrest
Estates
East of Bechelli Lane south of the
intersection with Woodacre Drive 529.87 318.06
05-06 Monopoly
Estates
Along Boardwalk Place at the intersection
with Wyndham Lane 1,153.28 0.00
06-06 Lowe's HIW North of East Cypress Avenue at the
intersection with Alfreda Way 29,407.24 15,097.00
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
07-06 Buckeye Pines West of Lake Boulevard at the intersection with Wilmington Way 814.39 519.70
08-06
Shastina Ranch
(Stonesfair/
Silverstone
annex.)
Along Shasta View Drive from Rancho
Road to Airport Road 825.15 221.46
09-06 Buenaventura
Park
South of Waushara Avenue at the
intersection of Piper Way 716.58 471.00
11-06 Tuscany
Village
East of Gold Hills Drive at the intersection
with Oasis Road 405.00 0.00
01-07
State
Compensation
Insurance
East of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection of Tarmac Road 940.61 940.60
02-07 Hilltop Center East of Hilltop Drive at the intersection of Browning Street 905.98 905.98
02-09 Placer West
On the southerly side of Placer Road
between Mary Lake Drive and O'Connor
Avenue
1,300.67 635.38
03-09 Highland Park
Just east of Interstate 5 south of State Route
299E, west of Churn Creek Road, and
north of Browning Street
376.57 334.74
01-11
River Ridge
Park/Terrace
and Stanford
Manor
On the south side of Quartz Hill Road,
easterly one-quarter mile from River Ridge
Drive to 150 feet west of White Sail Drive
143.64 123.04
02-11 River Park
Highlands
At the intersection of Benton Drive and
River Park Drive and along River Park
Drive
113.06 113.04
03-11
River Heights
and River
Heights PD
At the intersection of Hilltop Drive and
River Bend Road and along River Bend
Road
341.45 246.06
01-13 College
Highlands
On the west side of Shasta View Dr.
between Simpson Blvd. and Palacio Dr.
301.55 269.88
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
02-14 Westside
At the intersection of Placer Street and
Boston Avenue, White Hawk Estates,
Units 2 and 3 generally located at the
intersection of Teton Drive and Crescent
Moon Drive, and Ridge View Estates
located at the intersection of Placer Road
and Cumberland Drive

95.35 91.52
03-14 Browning
Pointe
On the west side of Browning Street
Boulevard from Old Alturas Road to
Friendly Road
778.74 778.74
01-15 Hidden Hills At Bodenhamer Boulevard and
Rollingview Drive 88.73 61.58
02-16 Shasta View
SW
On the west side of Shasta View from
Castlewood Drive to Pacific Avenue 78.33 76.44
03-16 River Pointe Calgary Place and Beretta Lane and a portion of Oxbow Street 209.28 192.14
01-17 Salt Creek
Heights
The subdivision north of Sunflower Drive
at the intersection of Buenaventura
Boulevard
545.06 545.06
01-19 Monroe
East of Shasta View Drive on the south
side of Oasis Road on the center medians
and the north side of Oasis Road
539.39 539.38
02-19
Center Court
Village (Elk
Crest annex.)
At both parkway strips of Palm Springs
Drive, at the corners of Sampras Drive
and Goolagong Drive, and at the corners
at Goolagong Drive and Argyle Road
275.81 234.00
01-20 Rio (Wyndham
Pointe)
Along Wyndham Lane crossing Thea
Drive, a section of the parkway strips at
Thea Drive, and at the intersection of
Ginny Court and Lagoon Drive
923.65 307.94
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-22 Luke Estates
On the south side of Old Alturas Road,
east of Oak Mesa Lane, and west of
Shasta View Drive.
1,603.84 1,080.66
01-23 Rancho Road
Industrial
Located on the south side of Rancho
Road, east of Airport Road. 3,372.16 1,951.94
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 15th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:

SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 398
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 400
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: LMD A Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 407
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 424
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 427
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 428
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 429
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 430
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 431
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 432
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 433
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 434
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 435
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 436
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 437
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 438
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 439
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 440
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 441
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 442
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 443
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 444
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 445
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 446
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 447
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 450
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: LMD B Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 495
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 496
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 497
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 504
Attachment: LMD C Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 506
Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: LMD Engineer's Report (Excluding LMD A, B, & C) 2025-26 (6.1--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts (SSMD) 01-07 Hope Lane and 01-19 Seven Bridges, to authorize and approve the following:
(1) Confirming the map of the assessment district as contained in the Engineer's Reports for SSMD 01-07 and SSMD 01-19; and
(2) Approving and confirming the annual assessments and ordering the levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2025-26 pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, Maintenance Districts, Streets and Highways Code Section 5820, et seq.

Fiscal Impact
Generally, Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts (SSMD) are self-supporting, and there is no fiscal impact to the City of Redding's (City) General Fund budget.

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

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

Following the hearing, the Council may take final action regarding the proposed annual assessments and levy amounts for Fiscal Year 2025–26.

MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 6.2
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.2--Public Hearing to consider Resolution regarding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-07 Hope Lane and 01-19 Seven Bridges.

Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 774
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19 Page 2 These SSMDs were formed to comply with the conditions of approval for the Hope Lane Subdivision, (S-12-03) and Seven Bridges Subdivision, (S-03-09/PD-1-09/RZ-2-09). These subdivisions were unable to utilize a standard gravity sewer line, and the subdivision’s conditions of development state that the costs of maintenance and operation of the lift station will be borne by the tributary property owners. Use of a sanitary sewer maintenance district ensures that the majority of maintenance responsibilities are borne by the owners of lots within the respective districts and not by other utility customers.

The proposed annual assessments for the SSMDs have been increased by an annual inflation adjustment which is tied to the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index” from the most recent March issue of Engineering News Record. This proposed assessment increase was developed pursuant to a methodology established at the time of the formation of the SSMD. The calculated levies reflect anticipated maintenance needs of the districts for Fiscal Year 2025-26. The proposed levy for SSMD 01-07 is less than the proposed assessment because the maintenance needs of this district for this fiscal year can be met at a lower levy amount. The proposed levy for SSMD 01-19 is at the proposed assessment because the subdivision has not been fully developed.

SSMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-07 Hope Lane At the intersection of Hope Lane and
Carnegie Drive
$ 531.68 $ 214.36
01-19 Seven Bridges At the intersection of Oasis Road and Rialto Parkway
$ 192.97 $ 192.96
A legal advertisement notifying the proposed annual assessment and public hearing was placed in the local newspaper which explained the proposed increase from the current assessment for Fiscal Year 2025–26. As of this writing, City staff has received no protest from lot owners regarding the proposed assessment.

Environmental Review
This activity is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

On January 25, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hope Lane Subdivision, and on March 10, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hope Lane Phase 2 Subdivision. On September 7, 2010, Council adopted the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Seven Bridges Subdivision. No further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26
SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26
Packet Pg. 775
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-____
SANITARY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS: SSMD 01-07 AND
SSMD 01-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING (1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEER’S REPORTS ON FILE WITH
THE CITY CLERK;
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING
THE LEVY AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PURSUANT
TO THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911.

WHEREAS:

A. On June 17, 2025, by Resolution No. 2025-047, the City Council (Council) approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-07 and 01-19 (Districts), and gave notice of the time and place of the July 15, 2025, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

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

C. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the City Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California on July 15, 2025, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessment.

D. The assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is outlined in the table below. This assessment does not represent an increase within the meaning of the Streets and Highways Code because the Fiscal Year 2025-26 cost of living adjustment in the amount of 1.9 percent is pursuant to a methodology approved at the time of the formation of the Districts.

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

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

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

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

3. The Council has considered all oral statements and written protests or communications made or filed by interested persons at the public hearing of July 15, 2025, and expressly overrules any and all protests filed objecting to the proposed annual assessment and levy amount in the Districts.

Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

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

5. The assessment against each developable lot, remaining parcel, or assessable acre located within the District for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is confirmed, adopted, and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

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

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

SSMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-07 Hope Lane At the intersection of Hope Lane and
Carnegie Drive
$ 531.68 $ 214.36
01-19 Seven Bridges At the intersection of Oasis Road and Rialto Parkway
$ 192.97 $ 192.96
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 15th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________
JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:
_____________________________ _________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: ^Location Map (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 779
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 780
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 781
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 782
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 783
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 784
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 785
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 786
Attachment: SSMD 1-07 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 787
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 788
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 789
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 790
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 791
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 792
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 793
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 794
Attachment: SSMD 1-19 Engineer's Report 2025-26 (6.2--Public Hearing Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion:
(1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, upon a determination the necessary findings for approval are in evidence; (2) Offer Ordinance approving Rezoning Application (RZ-2024-00156) consisting of 4.42 acres located at 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane from “RS-3” to “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family District for first reading by title only and waive the full reading; (3) Authorize the City Attorney to prepare, and the City Clerk to publish a summary ordinance; and
(4) Approve Tentative Subdivision Map Application (S-2022-02416), Zinco Subdivision.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The following alternatives are offered for City Council (Council) consideration:

A. Approve the tentative subdivision map and rezoning applications with modifications to the draft conditions of approval that the Council deems necessary to support the project based on the findings attached to this report. Minor modifications may be incorporated into a motion for approval; or
B. Deny the tentative subdivision map and rezoning applications. Such action must be based upon a finding that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan or other City development standards or poses a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff has not identified any justification for denial of the project.

MEETING DATE: July 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 6.3
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.3--Consider Tentative Subdivision Map Application (S-2022-02416) and Rezoning Application (RZ-2024-00156), by Zinco Holding, LLC, to subdivide two parcels located at 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane.

Jeremy Pagan, Development
Services Director/Bldg
Official
Packet Pg. 795
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding Page 2
Background/Analysis
At a public hearing on May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission (Commission) passed a motion recommending that the Council approve Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416 and Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156 for Zinco Subdivision. The Commission modified several conditions of approval to further clarify the fencing material and the maintenance of the fencing along the private detention. As the Commission does not have the authority to approve rezoning applications, and since the approval of the tentative subdivision map is contingent upon approval of the rezoning, the entire project is before the Council for consideration. The May 13, 2025, Commission staff report is available online for reference.

The proposed 16 lot single-family subdivision site consists of 4.42 acres located in the northwest quadrant of the City of Redding (City), west of Lake Boulevard and south of Keswick Dam Road. Currently, two existing parcels make up the project site. The property addressed as 3150 Jordan Lane and designated on the General Plan as “Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre” while the property addressed as 3250 Jordan Lane is designated “Residential, 3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre.” Both properties are currently zoned “RS-3” Residential Single-Family which allows for a maximum density of 3 units per acre.

In order to allow for the 16 lots, the project applicant proposes to rezone both properties to “RS3.5” Residential Single-Family and maintain consistency with the General Plan designations of both parcels; 3150 Jordan Lane having a maximum density of 3.5 units per acre and 3250 Jordan Lane having a minimum density of 3.5 units per acre. This zoning is consistent with the area south and east of Jordan Lane, which is zoned “RS- 3.5” with a General Plan designation of “Residential, 3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre.”
The map proposes to subdivide each of the two parcels into eight lots, for a total of 16 lots and an overall density of 3.6 units per acre. The number of lots is consistent with the proposed “RS3.5” zoning district and is well within the General Plan density range for each parcel. The design of the subdivision is also consistent with the surrounding development in the area with similar lot sizes and dimensions.

It is the opinion of staff that with application of the attached conditions of approval, all necessary findings for approval related to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance, and the tentative map are in evidence. The project proposes to rezone both properties to “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family which would provide consistency with the General Plan designation of 3250 Jordan Lane, having a minimum density of 3.5 units per acre in the General Plan, and allow for the overall development as proposed. The project is consistent with policies under General Plan Goal CDD9: Preserve existing community character and fabric and promote the development of livable and cohesive neighborhoods and districts. The proposed block-post fence and landscaping along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way provides a livable and aesthetically pleasing streetscape.

Packet Pg. 796
Report to Redding City Council July 8, 2025
Re: 6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding Page 3
Environmental Review
Based on the Initial Study prepared for the project, staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which was distributed to surrounding property owners and state and local agencies for a 30-day public review. The public review period ended on May 2, 2025. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the Initial Study, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and accompanying public/agency comments with staff’s response to those comments, is attached hereto. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the project and were made conditions of approval in the area of biological resources.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
^Draft Ordinance
^Findings
^Draft Conditions of Approval
^Location Map
^Zoning Map
^Proposed Zoning Map
^General Plan Map
^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program ^Tentative Map - Cover Sheet/Grading, Drainage, & Utilities/Trees Planning Commission Staff Report - May 13, 2025
Packet Pg. 797
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING ADOPTING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF REDDING ZONING MAP RELATING TO THE REZONING OF THE ZINCO SUBDIVISION (APN 114-050-005 & APN 114-050-006) CONSISTING OF 4.42 ACRES LOCATED AT 3150 AND 3250 JORDAN LANE IN THE CITY OF REDDING (RZ-2024-00156) WHEREAS, the Zoning Map of the City of Redding is incorporated in and made part of the Redding Municipal Code Title 18, known as the City of Redding Zoning Ordinance, and; WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the City of Redding Development Services Department requesting to rezone property addressed as 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane in association with Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing pertaining to the amendment to the Zoning Map on May 13, 2025 (RZ-2024-00156), and recommended that the City Council adopt the attached amendment to the Zoning Map, and; WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 15, 2025, duly-noticed prior to the first reading of the ordinance;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Finding of fact: The City finds and declares as follows:

A. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Map are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

B. Adoption of this ordinance will not impact the welfare of the citizens of Redding and its surrounding region.

Section 2. On the basis of the initial study prepared for Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156 by the Development Services Department, the City Council finds that the subject rezoning will not have a significant effect on the environment and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings:

A. The City of Redding has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the rezoning.

Based on the analysis of the potential impacts associated with the rezoning, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

B. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its supporting documentation reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Redding.

Section 3. That the boundaries of the districts referred to in Section 18.01.050 of the Redding Municipal Code, as designated on a map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Redding, California," Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: ^Draft Ordinance (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) dated January 7, 2003, are hereby altered as set forth on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof by:

REZONING: 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane
FROM: “RS-3” Residential Single-Family District
TO: “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family District
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption; and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause its publication according to law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the fifteenth day of July 2025, and was read and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ______ day of _____ 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

JACK MUNNS, Mayor
Attest: Form Approved:
_
SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: ^Draft Ordinance (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding)

FINDINGS

ZINCO HOLDING, LLC
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION S-2022-02416/
REZONING APPLICATION RZ-2024-00156

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The following two findings are necessary for approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration:

1. Based on the Initial Study and the information contained in the record, there will be no significant effect on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the Project.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its supporting documentation reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Redding.

TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66474)
In accordance with Section 66474 of the Government Code, the City Council makes the following findings:

1. That the density or use of the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential 2 to 3.5 Units per Acre and Residential 3.5 to 6 Units per Acre or applicable area and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Government Code.

Currently, two existing parcels make up the project site. The property addressed as 3150 Jordan Lane has a General Plan designation of “Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre” and the property addressed as 3250 Jordan Lane, “Residential, 3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre.” The proposed map subdivides each of the two parcels into 8 lots for an overall total of 16 lots. The density of the project is consistent with the General Plan.

The project proposes a rezoning of both properties from their current designations of “RS-3” Residential Single-Family to “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family in order for the density of the project to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, a rezoning of 3250 Jordan Lane would make the property’s zoning consistent with the General Plan: It is currently zoned for 3 units per acre while the General Plan calls for a minimum of 3.5 units per acre.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan or area or specific plans.

The project’s street and lot design conform to the standards of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance within the guidelines and purpose of the “RS-3.5” District. Adequate transportation and utility infrastructure exist adjacent to the project. The Conditions of Approval require construction of utilities and allow for their logical extension to surrounding properties. They also require improvements to Jordan Lane and Deodar Way including curb, gutter, and sidewalk. In addition, the Conditions of Approval require the undergrounding of overhead lines along Deodar Way in accordance with General Plan policy.

Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: ^Findings (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) S-2022-02416/Zinco Holding, LLC
Findings

3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development due to steepness of terrain; location of water courses; size or shape of the property; inadequate frontage, access, or building area; or other physical condition.

The site is relatively flat with no steepness of terrain and does not contain any area within the 100-year floodplain. There are no physical conditions that would make the site physically unsuitable for the proposed density and type of development proposed with this tentative map application.

4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat.

A Biological Resources Assessment was completed for the project site in 2024 by Vestra Resources. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared for the project. The only potentially significant impacts identified with the project were to Redding checkerbloom, dubious pea, and Henderson’s bent grass. Protocol level preconstruction surveys for these special status plants are required with the MND and in the conditions of approval for the project. If any of these special status plants are positively identified onsite, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required. With the adoption of the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Program the project would have no significant effect on the environment. The conditions of approval also contain provisions for the protection of nesting birds and bats that may inhabit the site. With these avoidance and minimization measures in place, the project would not cause substantial harm to the environment or wildlife.

5. The design of the proposed division and improvements will not cause serious public health problems.

Adequate measures have been applied with the Conditions of Approval to address potential concerns related to public health, including, but not limited to, provisions for water for domestic use and fire protection, extension of sanitary sewer facilities to ensure proper management of wastewater, installation of necessary storm drainage, construction of public streets and sidewalk, the undergrounding of overhead utilities along Deodar Way, and provision for proper and orderly timing for construction of necessary improvements. The Conditions of Approval also require the project to loop water to the existing stub to the north west of the subdivision to improve municipal water quality in the area.

6. The design of the proposed division and improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

There are no easements that grant public right-of-way across the project site. Any Bureau of Land Management patent easements that may remain are conditioned to be abandoned with the map. In addition to dedication of public right-of-way for streets interior to the subdivision, additional easements are required for the two detention ponds required for stormwater management and associated infrastructure. These easements are necessary for the maintenance of these stormwater features by the City. No existing public access would be obstructed or otherwise impeded by the proposed project.

Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: ^Findings (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding)

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

ZINCO HOLDING, LLC
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION S-2022-02416
Conditions marked with a double asterisk (**) are also mitigation measures.

General Requirements

1. The standard conditions for subdivisions delineated in Resolution 92-18 shall be met.

2. The developer shall note that Section 711.4 of the State Fish and Game Code requires payment of a fee to the County Clerk for filing a Notice of Determination for an environmental document; payment of this fee is the responsibility of the project proponent.

3. In accordance with Chapter 18.40.040 of the Zoning Code (Compliance with Map Requirements), all conditions applicable to post-subdivision construction (as marked with an asterisk*) shall be noted on the final map under a "Statement of Conditions" to provide notification to future property owners of building limitations and other requirements for the subdivision.

4. The developer shall dedicate to the City all necessary right-of-way and easements to provide public access and utilities to all lots and as otherwise necessary to facilitate the development requirements of the subdivision.

5. Unless noted otherwise by these conditions, all public-street, storm-drain, and utility improvements required of the subdivision shall comply with City Public Works Construction Standards or equivalent standards as approved by the City Engineer or affected private-utility company.

6. In accordance with correspondence from the Bureau of Land Management dated April 27, 2005, the existing easements created through Small Tract Act patent reservations that have not been accepted by a public entity are no longer needed to fulfill the provisions of the Small Tract Act. These easements are not to be shown on the final map.

7. Access to the subdivision shall be via Road A. Access rights to the subdivision from Jordan Lane and Deodar Way, with the exception of Road A, are to be waived and so indicated on the final map. This shall not affect access to the detention basin along Deodar Way for maintenance.

Streets and Circulation

8. Road “A” shall be developed within a standard 56-foot-wide right-of-way improved as follows:

Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2
a. Construction of a 36-foot-wide street section (curb to curb). b. Curb, gutter, and 5-foot-wide sidewalk.
c. Installation of street lights per City of Redding and REU standards.

9. Road ‘A’ shall properly align with the existing right-of-way/public service easement to the north, and a COR standard barricade constructed at its northerly extent.

10. Road “B” (the cul-de-sac street) shall be developed within a standard 56-foot-wide right-of-way improved as follows:
a. Construction of a 36-foot-wide street section (curb to curb). b. Curb, gutter, and 5-foot-wide sidewalk.
c. Installation of City standard cul-de-sac at terminus. d. Installation of street lights per City of Redding and REU standards.

11. At time of final map recordation, Roads A and B shall be dedicated to the City along with the following additional dedications:
a. A 5-foot-wide Public Service Easement along the west side of Deodar Way and the north side of Jordan Lane.
b. Adequate dedication on Jordan Lane to equal the 50-foot minimum right-of-way per City of Redding Construction Standard No. 112.00.

12. Deodar Way and Jordan Lane shall be developed with 5-foot sidewalk, curb, gutter, any necessary restriping, street lights, tie-in paving and overlay adjacent to project frontage as necessary to achieve a cross slope with a uniform cross slope from lip of gutter to roadway centerline.

13. Prior to recordation of the final map, Deodar Way along the project frontage shall be signed “No Parking.”

14. Prior to recordation of the final map, the yellow centerline shall be refreshed/replaced in-kind on Deodar Way from approximately 1246 Deodar to 1066 Deodar Way.

Construction, Grading, Drainage, Utilities

15. Improvement plans for clearing, grading, drainage, utilities, and other required improvements shall be approved by the Engineering Division and other concerned Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3
City of Redding departments prior to the beginning of any clearing or grading activities or site improvement activities and must be in conformance to Redding Municipal Code (RMC) Title 16.12. An Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included as part of all clearing and grading permit applications and must be approved by the City Engineer before a clearing and/or grading permit will be issued. "As-built" improvement plans with the Engineer's Declaration are required in conformance with RMC 16.12.230.

16. The final design of the detention basin in the northwest corner of the subdivision on Parcel 4 shall incorporate grading and landscaping/screening techniques that will visually enhance the basin. Basin design and screening/landscaping shall be depicted on the improvement plans for consideration and approval by the Development Services Director. The detention basin shall have alternating slopes of 3:1 to 5:1.

17. The detention basin in the northeast corner of the subdivision on Parcel 10 may have minimum 3:1 slopes and shall be completely screened from public view with a 12-foot wide solid metal double swing gate, and decorative wall or fence to be approved by the Development Services Director.

18. The access roads to the detention basins shall be at grade with the top of bank.

19. The proposed retaining walls shall be located along the northerly project boundary and designed to be entirely within the project.

20. Both detention basins shall be placed into a public service easement with recordation of the final map.

21. Prior to grading permit final, the water system serving the subdivision shall be extended north of Road A to connect to the existing 6-inch stub to the north of the subdivision creating a looped system.

22. Prior to recordation of the final map, the existing overhead utilities along Deodar Way shall be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of Redding Electric Utility. All costs associated with the relocation shall be the responsibility of the developer.

Fire Safety

23. This subdivision lies within the High Fire Severity Zone and all construction shall meet the requirements of the California Building Code Chapter 7A.*

24. Slash vegetation piles resulting from approved land-clearing activity, in addition to any past unpermitted land-clearing activity, shall be fully removed from the site prior to the start of the fire season or, if generated during fire season, be removed immediately, as approved by the Fire Marshal. Burning of debris is prohibited.

Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4
Landscape, Fencing, and Tree Preservation

25. A 6-foot-high, block-post fence made of durable materials (not wood) A 6-foothigh, block-post with wood-insert fence (or other material acceptable to the Development Services Director) shall be constructed at back of public-service easement along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. Construction of the fence shall be in accordance with the specifications of the Engineering Division and shall be constructed in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. Fencing shall be constructed so as not to obstruct sight distance at the corner of Jordan Lane and Deodar Way and/or the project entrance per City of Redding Municipal Code Section 18.41.100.

26. Interior and side yard 6-foot high fencing shall be constructed abutting the public service easements on Parcel 4 and Parcel 10 and shall be privately maintained for the lifetime of the easements.*

27. This condition shall be recorded on the final map and noted in the title report. The escrow instructions for the sale of each lot shall require that the purchaser and seller of each lot sign a statement that they have read and understand this condition of sale. The property owner(s) shall consent to the formation of a landscape maintenance district for all storm-water detention areas and all irrigation, landscape, and fencing improvements installed along Deodar Way and Jordan Lane relating to the subdivision. Said district shall be formed in accordance with the following:*
a. Prior to recordation of a final map, the property owner(s) shall submit a landscape maintenance district petition and consent form, a landscape maintenance agreement form, and applicable application fees to the Development Services Department. The district shall be formed and the landscape installed prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure within the subdivision. Formation of the district will obligate each lot owner within the subdivision to participate in the district.
b. The landscape and associated irrigation system for the district shall be designed in accordance with the specifications available from the Development Services Department and installed in accordance with the final plans as approved by the City. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Development Services Department at the time the subdivision improvement plans are submitted to the Engineering Division and are subject to approval prior to recordation of a final map.
c. The irrigation system shall be installed and accepted by the City in conjunction with the public improvements within the subdivision; landscape improvements shall be installed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a building permit with the subdivision.

Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5
d. The developer shall be responsible for all costs and fees associated with the formation, installation, and connection to City water and electric utilities. Such fees include, but are not necessarily limited to, formation costs, meter fees, connection charges, benefit fees, inspection fees, and development fees. The developer shall also be responsible for maintenance of the landscape and irrigation system until such time as the district is formed and fees are levied.

The minimum maintenance responsibility shall be 90 days for plant material and 1 year for the irrigation system from the date improvements are accepted by the City.

28. The following areas shall be maintained by a landscape maintenance district:
a. Landscaping and irrigation on all unimproved areas between the sidewalk and required fence for a total landscaped width of at least 5-feet along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way.
b. All rear-yard fencing along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. c. All storm-drain detention basins, their landscaping, and any associated fencing/screening that fronts a public street.
d. All MS4 treatment facilities.
e. Fencing along all sides of the detention basin on the north side of Parcel 10, including the gate.*

29. All trees identified for preservation as “Trees to Remain” on the Existing Site and Tree Survey page of the approved tentative map shall be clearly identified on the subdivision improvement plans. A tree construction/protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified (tree) professional in accordance with Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, of the Zoning Ordinance and included as part of the subdivision grading improvement-plan package. Tree-protection measures identified in the tree construction/protection plan shall be reflected in the final subdivision improvement plans and followed during construction.

Biological Resources

30. Removal of large trees with cavities, crevices and/or exfoliated bark 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 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 seven days prior to the implementation of construction activities. If a maternity colony is located within the study area, or adjacent to the study area, a disturbance free buffer shall be Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6
established by a qualified professional or, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), to ensure the colony is protected from project activities. Upon consultation with CDFW, if humane eviction of bats is deemed to be an acceptable wildlife management solution, it would also satisfy this condition.

31. The applicant shall have a pre-construction rare plant survey of the proposed disturbance area or other Project features that may impact special status species of the Project site conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate survey window (blooming period) for rare and endangered plants that have the potential to occur within the Project site if such a survey has not been provided to the City.

Surveys shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. If present, special status plant species plant populations will be flagged and, if possible, avoided during construction. If the population cannot be avoided during construction, a plan will be developed for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife which may include transplanting the plant population, compensation, or other measures established by that agency.**

32. If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven (7) days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found, a nondisturbance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist. The survey shall be provided to the CDFW. If construction activities cease for a period greater than seven (7) days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.**

33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit affecting any federal and/or state jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, as identified in the Project wetland delineation, the Project applicant shall provide written verification to the City of Redding Development Services Department that all necessary resource agency permits and mitigation requirements have been successfully secured from the USACOE, CDFW, CVRWQCB, or any other agency with jurisdiction over waters involved with the Project.

34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, protocol level surveys for the Crotch’s bumble bee shall be performed by a qualified biologist in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) June 2023 Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species survey Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7
protocol. If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected during surveys, the designated biologist shall notify CDFW as further coordination may be required to comply with CESA.

Cultural Resources

35. If, during the course of development, any archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources are uncovered or otherwise detected or observed, construction activities in the area affected shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeological professional must then be retained by the developer to investigate the discovered cultural object to determine its significance.

If the cultural object is deemed potentially significant by the archaeologist, appropriate treatment and measures shall be followed in accordance with applicable laws, as reviewed and approved by the City, prior to the resumption of work in the affected area.

Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 8

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISIONS
EFFECTIVE MAY 24, 2011
In accordance with City of Redding Ordinance 2469, Section 26, the following standard conditions of approval apply to all subdivision projects requiring a final map. Projectspecific conditions of approval will take precedence in the event of a conflict with standard conditions. References to the Grading Ordinance are based on Redding Municipal Code (RMC) Title 16, Chapter 12. References to the Subdivision Ordinance are based on RMC Title 17. References to the Zoning Ordinance are based on RMC Title 18.

FINAL MAP

1. A final map shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 17.40 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The final map and all necessary supporting documents and information must be filed with the City Engineer prior to the expiration date of the tentative map as required by Section 17.40.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance.

2. In accordance with Chapter 17.50 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the property owner shall dedicate to the City all right-of-ways and easements necessary to provide public access and utilities to the subdivision as required by the tentative map approval.

3. Prior to the recording of a final map, a complete application shall be submitted to the City to apportion any special assessment-district lien (Improvement Bond Act of 1915) affected by the subdivision, including the applicable fees, an assessment segregation diagram, and any required additional information.

4. In-lieu park fees must be paid prior to the recording of the final map in accordance with Chapter 17.54 of the Subdivision Ordinance, unless an equivalent parkland dedication is made in conformance with the tentative map approval.

5. Proposed street names must be submitted for City and agency review in accordance with Section 17.64.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance prior to the recording of the final map. The final map shall reflect only street names approved by the City.

6. A 5-foot-wide public-service easement shall be dedicated on the final map abutting all public-street right-of-ways within the subdivision.

7. In the case where a regulatory floodplain exists on a subdivision site, the final map shall clearly delineate the limits of the 100-year base floodplain and elevations. The floodplain identified on the final map shall be consistent with Section 18.51.020, Basis for Establishing Areas of Special Flood Hazard, of the Zoning Ordinance.

8. For residential subdivisions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of a final map which prohibit the Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 9
storage of recreational vehicles in the front-yard or street side-yard-setback areas as described in Schedule 18.31.030-C(8) of the Zoning Ordinance.

CONSTRUCTION - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

9. In accordance with Chapter 17.70 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the developer must secure approval of subdivision improvement plans for grading and all street, utility, and drainage infrastructure from the City Engineer prior to the start of any construction. Subdivision improvement plans must be prepared by a registered civil engineer and fully address the construction of all improvements required of the subdivision under the approved tentative map.

10. Acquisition of all off-site interests in title or easements necessary to satisfy the requirements of the subdivision approval shall be the responsibility of the developer. In the event the developer is unable to acquire such interests, the developer may petition the City Council for adoption of a resolution initiating eminent-domain proceedings over the lands needed for the off-site improvements.

The developer shall bear all costs for such proceedings, including attorney fees, court costs, and land-value costs.

11. Unless a project-specific development standard is identified and approved for the subdivision project with the tentative map, all public improvements required of the subdivision shall comply with City Construction Standards and other adopted standards specified under Section 17.70.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance and/or equivalent standards, as determined necessary by the City Engineer.

12. Prior to approval of subdivision improvement plans and issuance of a grading permit, the property owner shall secure all other necessary permits/approvals required by law from outside agencies also having jurisdiction over the project, including, but not limited to:
a. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In most cases, the developer must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and secure a Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from RWQCB.
b. Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Where a project would impact a waterway, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement must be finalized with DFG.
c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Where a project would impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S., appropriate Nationwide or Individual Permit approvals shall be obtained from ACOE.

Copies of required agency permits/approvals shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Any special development requirements of these agencies affecting Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 10
improvements within the subdivision shall be reflected on the final improvement plans.

13. Required subdivision improvements shall be properly and fully constructed, inspected, and accepted by the City in accordance with Chapter 17.74 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Any incomplete improvements shall be secured under the provisions of Schedule 17.40.060.B and Chapter 17.74 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Final survey, as-built improvement plans, and related engineering certifications are required at the completion of work in conformance with Sections

17.70.070 and 17.70.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 16.12.230 of the Grading Ordinance.

CONSTRUCTION - STANDARD IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Grading, Erosion Control, Tree Preservation

14. Subdivision clearing, grading, and erosion-control plans shall be in full conformance with the Grading Ordinance. The final grading improvement plans shall be consistent with the preliminary grading plan and any tree-preservation plans considered with the approved tentative map.

15. The project developer shall prepare a site and construction-phase-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and secure a Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in compliance with the requirements of the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Best Management Practices (BMPs) prescribed in the SWPPP shall be utilized and followed in all project site-development activities.

16. All trees identified for preservation shall be clearly identified on the subdivision improvement plans. A tree construction/protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified (tree) professional in accordance with Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, of the Zoning Ordinance and included as part of the subdivision grading improvement-plan package. Tree-protection measures identified in the tree construction/protection plan shall be reflected in the final subdivision improvement plans and followed during construction.

Drainage System

17. Storm-drain facilities shall be designed consistent with the requirements of City Construction Standards, the City of Redding Storm Water Quality Improvement Plan, and the City of Redding Phase II NPDES Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Quality Order No. 2003–05 - DWQ). Project design shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the polluting of stormwater, both during construction and long-term. Should the maintenance costs of the long-term pollution-control measures exceed typical storm-drain-system costs, such costs shall be borne by the project by way of a Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 11
landscape maintenance district, escrow account, or other such financing mechanism.

18. Prior to improvement-plan approval, the developer must obtain approval for proper management of stormwater peak flows in accordance with City Council Policy 1806 and the specifications of the City Engineer. Such measures shall address impacts from the 10-, 25-, and 100-year-storm events. Projects shall address peak flows to maintain predevelopment levels at all locations downstream of the project.

A drainage report shall be prepared to the format outlined by the Engineering Division, stamped and signed by a qualified engineer, and provided to the Engineering Division with submittal of project improvement plans.

Utilities

19. Essential utilities, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, water, electric, natural gas, and communication distribution lines, including main lines and service laterals, shall be extended and sized appropriately to serve each lot and to provide logical extensions of service to subsequent phases and adjacent properties in accordance with Section 17.60.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance. These utilities shall be installed in accordance with the capacity, construction, metering, and testing standards of the City and other involved private utility company(s), including applicable utility master plans.

20. Any necessary off-site utility extensions shall be placed in a public-street right-ofway or public-service easement in a location approved by the City Engineer and other responsible utility companies. Vehicular access for maintenance purposes shall be provided to all utility infrastructure outside a public right-of-way as determined necessary by, and in a manner approved by, the City Engineer.

21. New "dry" utilities, including electric, telephone, and cable television, must be installed underground in accordance with Section 17.60.090 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Any existing overhead facilities within a proposed subdivision and along peripheral streets must also be placed underground, unless waived under the project-specific conditions.

22. Electric-supply facilities shall be furnished and installed in accordance with the Redding Electric Utility Service Policy Resolution currently in effect at the time the developer's plans are approved by the City.

23. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation or modification of existing utility facilities or structures necessitated by the construction of the project or of improvements required as a condition of approval of this project, including reimbursement of any costs to the affected utility for work performed to support the project.

Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 12

24. After the initial review of project improvement plans by the Engineering Division, the developer shall consult with the Redding Electric Utility (REU) for preparation of an electric-service plan. A copy of the electric-service plan, developed and approved by REU, shall be incorporated into the final improvement plans.

25. Streetlights shall be provided in accordance with applicable Redding Electric Utility Construction Standards 553.0, et seq.

Fire Department

26. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations throughout the subdivision in accordance with the California Fire Code as approved by the Fire Marshal. All fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow meeting Appendix-B of the California Fire Code and meet the maximum daily demand for the area. "On-lot" hydrants and necessary easements to service development on flag lots or oversized lots shall also be installed as required by the Fire Marshal.

27. Brush piles resulting from land-clearing activity shall be fully removed from the site prior to the start of the fire season or, if generated during fire season, be removed immediately.

Air Quality

28. The following Air Quality Element Standard Mitigation Measures shall be applied during grading and construction activities to control dust and PM10 emissions:
a. Nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
b. All grading operations may be suspended by the City Engineer when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour.
c. Temporary traffic control shall be provided as appropriate during all phases of construction to improve traffic flow (e.g., flag person). d. Construction activities that could affect traffic flow shall be scheduled in offpeak hours. e. Active construction areas, haul roads, etc., shall be watered at least twice daily or more as needed to limit dust.
f. Exposed stockpiles of soil and other backfill material shall either be covered, watered, or have soil binders added to inhibit dust and wind erosion.

Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13
g. All trucks hauling soil and other loose material shall be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of CVC Section 23114. This provision is enforced by local law enforcement agencies. h. 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. Wheel washers shall be used where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or trucks and any equipment shall be washed off leaving the site with each trip.
i. Alternatives to open burning of cleared vegetative material on the project site shall be used, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division, Fire Marshal, and Shasta County Air Quality Management District. Suitable alternatives include, but are not limited to, on-site chipping and mulching and/or hauling to a biomass fuel site.

Cultural Resources

29. If, during the course of development, any archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources are uncovered or otherwise detected or observed, construction activities in the area affected shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeological professional must then be retained by the developer to investigate the discovered cultural object to determine its significance.

If the cultural object is deemed potentially significant by the archaeologist, appropriate treatment and measures shall be followed in accordance with applicable laws, as reviewed and approved by the City, prior to the resumption of work in the affected area.

Miscellaneous

30. Issuance of building permits for structures on lots resulting from the subdivision will not occur until a final map is recorded and necessary public-street and utility improvements are available. An exception may be granted at the discretion of the Building Official allowing issuance of a building permit for the construction of model homes and other special circumstances in accordance with Section 17.04.090 of the Subdivision Ordinance.

31. Permanent and temporary signs related to the subdivision shall comply with Chapter 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance.

32. In the event of any confusion, conflict, vagueness, typographical error, or special circumstance where implementation of any standard or project-specific condition is in question, the Development Services Director has the authority, in accordance with Section 17.04.080 of the Subdivision Ordinance, to determine an appropriate Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco S‐2022‐02416 June 27, 2025
Draft Conditions of Approval Page 14
remedy as necessary to ensure that the intent of the condition and related tentative map approval is met in accordance with applicable laws and policies, and as necessary to ensure orderly development.

33. The developer/applicant shall note that pursuant to Chapter 16.20 of the Redding Municipal Code, City development impact fees are required to be paid at the time of building occupancy/final inspection for new construction, building enlargement, or other improvement. These fees are structured to mitigate the project's fair share of cumulative impacts to the City's transportation, fire-suppression, utility, and parks infrastructure systems based upon necessary improvements to accommodate new development under the City's General Plan. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that he/she has the right to protest/appeal imposition of any of these fees or fee amounts. Any protest/appeal must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(a).*
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: ^Draft Conditions of Approval (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: ^Location Map (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: ^Zoning Map (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) RS-3.5
RS-3.5
GC
NC
GO
RM-9
HC
RM-1
RM-12
RM-6
RS-2
RM-12
RS-2.5

SANTA ROSA WAY

DEODAR WAY

E KESWICK DAM RD
ONA LN

DARA CT

GREENBACK LN

MISHKA CT VALLI CT

HENRY MOORE LN
OASIS
RD

LAKE BLVD

JORDAN LN
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

GIS DIVISION

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
DATE PRODUCED:
-
0 200 400 Feet

PROPOSED ZONING MAP
P:\Planning\ProProjects\RZ\RZ-2024-00156.aprx
FEBRUARY 21, 2024
RZ-2024-00156

ZINCO HOLDING, LLC
3150 & 3250 JORDAN LN
AP# 114-050-006 & -005
RS-3..__
RS-3..__
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: ^Proposed Zoning Map (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: ^General Plan Map (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Permit No. S-2022-02416 & RZ-2024-00156
State Clearinghouse No. 2025040223

SUBJECT
Zinco Subdivision

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project applicant, Zinco Holding, LLC, is requesting approval of Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416 and Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156 to subdivide approximately

4.4 gross acres, spanning two adjacent parcels located in the northwest quadrant of the City, into 16 single-family residential lots, along with roadways and other supporting infrastructure, while rezoning both parcels from “RS-3” Residential Single Family, 3-units per acre, to “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family, 3.5-units per acre.

Residential lot sizes would range from 7,229 square feet to 15,549 square feet with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet as required by the City’s zoning ordinance for the RS 3.5 zoning district.

However, the majority of the lot sizes are within the 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square foot range.

The project site currently consists of two adjacent parcels, both of which would require a rezoning, from allowing 3 units per acre to 3.5 units per acre to accommodate the proposed density. The project proposes a density of 3.6 units per acre which is consistent with the rounding rules of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Designation for the parcels.

As the site drains into two different basins, the project proposes two detention ponds, each draining into a separate basin, which would also act as water quality treatment features.

Access to the subdivision would be provided from a new street (Road A) that would intersect with Jordan Lane in the westerly portion of the site. This road segment would continue to the northly edge of the site for a potential future extension of the roadway. An interior cul-de-sac street (Road B) connected to Road A would provide access to the remaining lots in the subdivision. The Conditions of Approval require construction of necessary improvements, including construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. No vehicular access would be taken from Deodar Way and all utility connections are available adjacent to the site. Street improvements would be required of the project along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. These improvements include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along with landscaping and fencing.

The project includes the off-site extension of the water line in Road A to the existing water main stub approximately 30 feet to the north of the subdivision. Looping the water system in this way Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2
increases water quality to properties at the end of the pipeline while also cutting down on maintenance costs associated with dead ends in the system.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in the northwest quadrant of the City and is surrounded by existing development. This development includes single-family development and a mobile home park.

Some of the adjacent parcels are not fully improved and/or have natural landscaping. The site itself is relatively flat and undeveloped. Vegetation consists of a moderate coverage of scattered smallto-medium-sized blue oak trees interspersed with gray pine and live oak trees, shrubs consisting of manzanita and poison oak, and annual grasses and forbs.

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
The City of Redding conducted an Initial Study (attached), which determined that the proposed project could have significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions to the project proposal create the specific mitigation measures identified below. The project, as revised and as agreed to by the applicant, avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects identified, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If there are substantial changes that alter the character or impacts of the proposed project, another environmental impact determination will be necessary.

The project includes measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts of development on biological resources.

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 which it determines are equivalent or more effective. The lead agency would adopt written findings that the new measure is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it, in itself, 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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. All potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, with its supporting documentation, fully incorporated herein, 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.

Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3

MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-BIO-1: The applicant shall have a pre-construction rare plant survey of the proposed disturbance area or other project features that may impact special status species of the project site conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate survey window (blooming period) for rare and endangered plants that have the potential to occur within the project site if such a survey has not been provided to the City. Surveys shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. If present, special status plant species plant populations will be flagged and, if possible, avoided during construction. If the population cannot be avoided during construction, a plan will be developed for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) which may include transplanting the plant population, compensation, or other measures established by that agency.

MM-BIO-2: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven (7) days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist. The survey shall be provided to the CDFW.

If construction activities cease for a period greater than seven (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
• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Redding
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Redding
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Redding • California Native Plant Society, Shasta County
• Shasta Environmental Alliance
• Redding Rancheria
• Wintu Tribe of Northern California
• All property owners within 300 feet of the property boundary • Applicant
• Property Owner, if not applicant
• Representative

PUBLIC REVIEW
( X ) Draft document referred for comments April 2, 2025 ( ) No comments were received during the public review period.

Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4
( ) 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 Response to Comments, attached).

The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and other information concerning the project are available for public review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Redding, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001, and online on the Development Services’ City Planning Projects page of the City’s website at http://www.cityofredding.gov. If you have any questions or wish to submit comments, please contact Danny Castro, Associate Planner, at [email protected], or by telephone at (530) 225-4471.

Lily Toy, Planning Manager
May 8, 2025
____________________________________
Date
______________________
Date of Final Report
Attachments:

A. Location map
B. Initial Study
C. Mitigation Monitoring Program
D. Public Comments
E. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning MND Attachment
A
Location Map
Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning ~
~ !>
ll
Iu
C---- <l'.
::,::

I
(/)
~
I

E KESWICK DAM RD
I \

I/ '------
~
n I '- \_ .._
\ [3150 JORDAN LN ~ '------ , 3250 JORDAN LN
~ I,
~ ,"'-"'-""-. "'- "'- I I I I I I \ ~
~ p
~'( !llullltJJ~ «'t'o
f---F=E f-- r7 I F ,_ ~
f-- 7 I
Z (
JORDAl'J rn ,---- ------1 Lt(
~~l
g ~
~
~ !
~
~ "' ;
~
GIS DIVISION +

N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
w E DATE PRODUCED
JANUARY 20, 2023
L-----------1
s 200 400 Feet
P:\Planning\ProProjects\S\S-2022-02416.aprx
~I
o:::,
0J 0 , ~ :
:>-! o:::,
z
w
I ~

I I I I
I I
I
7 I
[
I <-------- I
~n I
<-------- I---
~ I I I I 117 1 s
N 1- ) --- l-1--- 1/-: 1 0::: <-------- u I <l'. <l'. ,u i n- 0 - 1- 1 0 <-------- ~- '--' w '--' I I 0 0 I I ·~ I [

SANTA ROSA WAY
LJ ~
~
- -
V

LOCATION MAP
S-2022-02416

ZINCO HOLDING, LLC
3150 & 3250 JORDAN LANE
AP# 114-050-005 & -006
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning MND Attachment
B
Initial Study
Packet Pg. 826
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

ENVIRONMENTAL

INITIAL STUDY

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
References and Documentation
Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning
Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416
Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156
Prepared by:

CITY OF REDDING
Development Services Department
Planning Division
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96001
March 31, 2025
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 2

CITY OF REDDING

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title:

Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning

2. Lead agency name and address:

CITY OF REDDING
Development Services Department Planning Division
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001

2. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Danny Castro, Associate Planner, (530) 225-4471

3. Project Location:
3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane, Redding, CA 96003

5. Applicant’s Name and Address:

Vinnie Coletti
20083 Sunrise Drive
Redding, CA 96002
Representative’s Name and Address:

Josh Miller
Horrocks Engineering
P.O. Box 1307
Anderson, CA 96007

6. General Plan Designation:
“Residential, 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre,” and “Residential, 3.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre”

7. Zoning:
“RS-3” Residential Single-Family District

8. Description of Project:

Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416 and Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156 propose to subdivide approximately

4.4 gross acres, spanning two adjacent parcels located in the northwest quadrant of the City, into 16 single-family residential lots, along with roadways and other supporting infrastructure, while rezoning both parcels from “RS-3” Residential Single-Family, 3-units per acre, to “RS-3.5” Residential Single-Family, 3.5-units per acre.

Residential lot sizes would range from 7,229 square feet to 15,549 square feet with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet as required by the City’s zoning ordinance for the RS-3.5 zoning district. However, the majority of the lot sizes are within the Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 3
8,000 square feet to 10,000 square foot range. The Project site currently consists of two adjacent parcels, both of which would require a rezoning from allowing 3 units per acre to 3.5 units per acre to accommodate the proposed density. The Project proposes a density of 3.6 units per acre which is consistent with the rounding rules of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Designation for the parcels.

As the site drains into two different basins, the Project proposes two detention ponds, each draining into a separate basin, which would also act as water quality treatment features.

Access to the subdivision would be provided from a new street (Road A) that would intersect with Jordan Lane in the westerly portion of the site. This road segment would continue to the northly edge of the site for a potential future extension of the roadway. An interior cul-de-sac street (Road B) connected to Road A would provide access to the remaining lots in the subdivision. The Conditions of Approval require construction of necessary improvements, including construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. No vehicular access would be taken from Deodar Way, and all utility connections are available adjacent to the site. Street improvements would be required of the Project along Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. These improvements include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along with landscaping and fencing.

The Project includes the off-site extension of the water line in Road A to the existing water main stub approximately 30 feet to the north of the subdivision. Looping the water system in this way increases water quality to properties at the end of the pipeline while also cutting down on maintenance costs associated with dead ends in the system.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The Project site is located in the north west quadrant of the City and is surrounded by existing development. This development includes single-family development and a mobile home park. Some of the adjacent parcels are not fully improved and/or have natural landscaping. The site itself is relatively flat and undeveloped. Vegetation consists of a moderate coverage of scattered small-to-medium-sized blue oak trees interspersed with gray pine and live oak trees, shrubs consisting of manzanita and poison oak, and annual grasses and forbs.

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

California Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
United States Army Corps of Engineers

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.?
The Redding Rancheria and the Wintu Tribe of Northern California were noticed about this Project and the preparation of its associated initial study. No California Native American tribes requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 4
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 Potentially Significant Unless 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 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of 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. ☐ 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 Planning Division of the Development Services Department, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. Contact Associate Planner Danny Castro at (530) 225-4471.

Danny Castro Date
Development Services Department
March 28, 2025
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 5
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
 Mineral Resources
 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 considered to be 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.

Prior environmental evaluations applicable to all or part of the Project site:
- City of Redding General Plan 2045
- City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, 2024, SCH #2022050300 - CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, as adopted by the Redding City Council on March 13, 2024, by Resolution 2024-027 List of attachments/references (All technical reports listed below are on file and available in the Development Services Department, Planning Division):

Attachment A – Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Cover Sheet (Tentative Map)
Figure 3 – Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utilities
Figure 4 – Existing Site and Tree Survey
Attachment B – Archaeological Inventory Survey, Flowra, February, 2023 Attachment C – Biological Resources Assessment, Zinco Subdivision Project 3150 and 3152 Jordan Lane, Redding, California, VESTRA Resources Inc., October 2024
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 6
Attachment D – City of Redding Preliminary Drainage Report for Zinco Subdivision, Horrocks, June 2023 Attachment E – Wildland Resource Managers Oak Evaluation Form, Location Zinco/Redding, May 2, 2024 Attachment F – Zinco Property Wetlands Delineation, Wildland Resource Managers, December 2024 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? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
X
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that area experienced 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? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion:
a) Scenic resources identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report include the Sacramento River and its tributaries, mountains and foothills, and open hillsides. Development of the Project would not obstruct a scenic vista identified in the City of Redding General Plan 2045 and would be consistent with development pattern established on nearby properties. Although new development would alter the appearance of the existing conditions, it would not create a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or degrade the City’s visual character or quality due to the existing urbanized character of the City. The Project will comply with the City’s development ordinances, including the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed Project would not represent a significant change to the overall scenic quality of the area. b) The Project site is not located adjacent to a state-designated scenic highway. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and the Project would not substantially obstruct, interrupt, or detract from identified scenic resources. There are not prominent rock outcroppings, visually-significant tree stands, or historic buildings in the vicinity of the Project. c) The Project will be compatible with the existing developed visual character of the adjacent/nearby development. The Project is consistent with the General Plan density allowed on site and the Project site is located in an area developed with similar uses. The location, size, and design of the proposed use would be compatible with uses in the immediate area. d) The Project would generate light that is customary for development and comply with the Zoning Ordinance light standards. There would not be an adverse effect on day or nighttime views in the area.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Community Development and Design Element 2045 City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 City of Redding Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.40.090
Mitigation:

None necessary.

Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 7
II. AGRICULTURE 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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X
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 5110(g))?
X
d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?X Discussion:
a-e) The majority of the Project site consists of Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, with approximately 0.4 acres of the site in the northwest corner consisting of Newtown gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes. Neither soil type meets the criteria for Prime Farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. According to the General Plan Background Report, prime agricultural soils in the Planning Area are limited to Churn Creek Bottom and pockets of land along Stillwater Creek in the vicinity of Shasta College. The Project site is not under Williamson Act contract and does not contain forest land or timberlands. The Project would not convert or rezone any farmland to non-agricultural use, or any forest land to non-forest use.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, Soil Survey of Shasta County Area.

Mitigation:

None necessary.

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? X
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
X
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 8
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
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
Discussion:
a) Shasta County, including the far northern Sacramento Valley, currently exceeds the state's ambient standards for ozone (smog) and particulates (fine, airborne particles). Consequently, these pollutants are the focus of local air quality policy, especially when related to land use and transportation planning. Even with application of measures to reduce emissions for individual projects, cumulative impacts are unavoidable when ozone and/or particulate emissions are involved. For example, the primary source of emissions contributing to ozone is from vehicles. Any project that generates vehicle trips has the potential of contributing incrementally to the problem.

The City of Redding General Plan (GP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded that cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable on a City-wide basis and those impacts are addressed in the adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The GP EIR estimated areawide and mobile source emissions under the General Plan 2045 and compared the estimates to the estimated area and mobile source emissions projected in the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) for year 2025, which is the time horizon of the AQAP. The analysis concluded that the cumulative ROG and NOX emissions that would be generated by activity under the GP in 2045 would exceed the projections in the AQAP for year 2025 resulting in a very conservative determination. The GP EIR mirrors GP policies by requiring Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ2. AQ-1 requires that “Standard Mitigation Measures” (SMMs) be applied to all discretionary projects. AQ-2 requires the use of Best Available Mitigation Measures (BAMMs) recommended by SCAQMD which has the ability to provide recommendations for each discretionary project. The requirement of SMMs are also required by the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (SCOA) for discretionary projects including subdivisions. Because the Project would generate the type of construction and traffic emissions projected for the land use types and density set forth for the Project site by the GP EIR, the Project would not conflict with the SCAQMD plans and impacts would be less than significant. b) The GP EIR concluded that cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable on a City-wide basis and those impacts are addressed in the adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The GP EIR concluded that implementation of the GP would cumulatively generate construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, including ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from site preparation (e.g., excavation, clearing), off-road equipment, material delivery, worker commute trips, and other activities (e.g., building construction, asphalt paving, application of architectural coatings).

Implementation of the construction-related SMMs as required by the City’s SCOA for discretionary projects would reduce construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. However, due to Shasta County’s nonattainmenttransitional status for ozone, construction activities associated with the Project would add to the cumulative impacts, and the GP EIR acknowledges that implementation of the GP may result in adverse air quality impacts to surrounding land uses and may contribute to the existing air quality condition in the City. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in increased construction-related air quality emissions beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GP EIR for the Project site. Nonetheless, and consistent with the findings of the GP EIR, Project-related air quality emissions during construction activities would contribute to the significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impact identified by the GP EIR (Impact AQ-2), However, the Project would not result in increased impacts or increased cumulatively-considerable impacts due to construction-related emissions beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by the GP EIR and would not exceed the thresholds established by the GP.

The City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 establishes emission thresholds that have been adopted by regional agencies when determining air quality impacts of discretionary projects for the important regional/local pollutants, including: Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), which are ozone precursors, and Inhalable Particulate Matter, 10 Micron (PM10) and 2.5 Micron (PM2.5) as follows:

Level "A" Level "B"
25 pounds per day of NOx 137 pounds per day of NOx
25 pounds per day of ROG 137 pounds per day of ROG
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 9
80 pounds per day of PM10 137 pounds per day of PM10
80 pounds per day of PM2.5
The process of applying SMM and BAMM is to apply appropriate SMM to all projects based on potential air quality impacts and to help contribute to reducing cumulative impacts. If the Project exceeds Level "A" threshold, then BAMM will be applied based on the unique characteristics of the Project selected from a list of measures provided by AQMD. If a project exceeds Level “B” thresholds, SMM, BAMM, and appropriate special BAMM would be applied and the City will seek recommendations of the AQMD regarding the efficiency of proposed emissions measures beyond BAMM. If a project’s emission cannot be reduced to below Level “B” thresholds, emission offsets will be required. If, after applying emission offsets, the Project still exceeds the Level "B" threshold, then an Environmental Impact Report is required.

The current Project has the potential to impact air quality primarily in two ways: (1) the Project would generate vehicle trip emissions (with NOx, ROG, and PM10) that contribute cumulatively to local and regional air quality conditions; and (2) fugitive dust (particulate/PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are possible during construction activities. As a residential development, the Project does not have the potential to generate significant emission concentrations of other pollutants subject to state and federal ambient air quality standards and no recommendation for BAMM were made by the SCAQMD.

Application of the SMMs outlined below would reduce the Project’s potential air quality impacts to a level less than significant.

1. Apply nontoxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specification to all inactive construction areas (previously-graded areas inactive for ten (10) days or more).

2. Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering prior to final occupancy.

3. All grading operations shall be suspended by the City Engineer when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour as directed by the AQMD.

4. Provide temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction to improve traffic flow (e.g. flag person) as approved by the City Engineer.

5. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours as determined by the City Engineer.

6. Water active construction sites at least twice daily or as directed by the Public Works Department.

7. All truck hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or maintain at least two feet (2’) of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of CVC Section 23114.

This provision is enforced by local law enforcement agencies.

8. Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweeper with reclaimed water).

9. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.

In addition to the requirements of the California Building Code, the following operational SMMs will be applied as appropriate to as recommended by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District:

1. Provide energy-efficient process systems, such as water heaters, furnaces, and boiler units.

2. All new wood burning devices shall be EPA Phase II certified.

3. Large residential, commercial, and industrial projects should include bus shelters at transit access points.

4. Contribute to traffic-flow improvements that reduce emissions and are not growth-inducing (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.)

5. Install an electrical outlet at the front and back of all residential units for electrical yard equipment.

6. Streets should be designed to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops. c-d) The GP EIR concluded that cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable on a City-wide basis and those are addressed in the adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. However, the document notes that the SCAQMD identified the following types of land use conflicts that could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive pollutant concentrations in their CEQA Land Use Protocol Guidelines:
• Development projects with sensitive receptors in close proximity to a congested intersection or roadway with high levels of emissions from motor vehicles. High concentrations of carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, or toxic air contaminants are Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 10
the most common concerns.
• Development projects with sensitive receptors close to an industrial source of toxic air contaminants. • Development projects with sensitive receptors close to a source of odorous emissions. Although odors generally do not pose a health risk, they can be quite unpleasant and often lead to citizen complaints to the District and to local governments.

The Project does not meet any of these criteria. Further, the Project is not located in proximity to any of the land uses types noted.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, 2024, SCH #2022050300 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, as adopted by the Redding City Council on March 13, 2024, by Resolution 2024-027 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
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?
X
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? X 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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 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?
X
Discussion:

The information below is based on the results documented in the Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) prepared by Vestra Resources Inc., dated October of 2024, and the Zinco Property Wetlands Delineation prepared by Wildland Resource Managers, dated December 2024, for the Project.
a) Plants
The BRA identified vegetation within the survey area through consultation with the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) followed by a reconnaissance survey. CWHR states that the dominant vegetation community onsite is mixed chaparral which may have occurred prior to removal of trees and shrubs from the property. The reconnaissance survey determined that Blue Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 11
Oak Woodland and Forest Alliance is now present onsite. The area shown as Barren was found to support several oak trees and is a part of the oak woodland community.

The habitat observed onsite consists of the Blue Oak Woodland and Forest Alliance. Dominant species observed were blue oak and foothill pine with a sparse understory of manzanita, toyon, and poison oak. Introduced annual grasses and forbs comprise the understory plant community. The herbaceous species observed were wild oats, rattlesnake grass, little rattlesnake grass, and brome.

Dirt roads resulting from public use since prior to 1998, as observed via Google Earth aerial imagery, have resulted in fragmented mature stands of Blue Oak Woodland habitat with heavily disturbed soils within the survey area. As CWHR suggests, the habitat may once have been mixed chaparral, but years of disturbance have transitioned the site to what is now fragmented oak woodlands.

The BRA, which was conducted in October and did not include a protocol level plant survey, concluded that three special status plant species could not be ruled out and technically have the potential to occur on-site. They are all ranked as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 3 species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). CNPS rank 3 species are species that are not very threatened in California. They have a low degree and immediacy of threat or have no currently known threats. What unites CNPS Rank 3 plants is that CNPS lacks the necessary information to assign them a rank or to determine them exempt from ranking. Because of this lack of information, it is common practice for agencies to consider Rank 3 plants as special status species. Mitigation measures for these species typically consist of doing protocol level surveys in order to gain a better understanding of their occurrence and distribution. Although the likelihood of these three species occurring onsite is low, the following special status species plants have the potential to occur onsite:

Redding Checkerbloom: Redding checkerbloom is a perennial herb occurring in cismontane woodland or open oak woodland between elevations of 150-370 meters. Although the reconnaissance survey was conducted outside of the flowering period, the site was visually scanned for Redding checkerbloom in the vegetative state and none were observed. Because a protocol-level survey would be required to definitively determine whether the species is present within the site, its presence cannot technically be ruled out. There is potential habitat underneath the onsite blue oak canopy containing undisturbed vegetation where Redding checkerbloom could grow. A nearby occurrence of ten individuals of this species was discovered in 2023 approximately 0.75 miles south of site in similar habitat, although in apparently less disturbed conditions. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would bring potential impacts to the Redding checkerbloom to less than significant.

Dubious Pea: Dubious pea is a perennial vine-like herb that occurs in cismontane woodlands, lower montane coniferous forests, and upper montane coniferous forests between 500 feet and 3000 meters elevation in Shasta County. Although the survey done for the BRA was conducted outside of the flowering period, no dubious pea or closely related pea was observed in the vegetative state.

The nearest and most recent records of this species occurring in Redding are from 1911. However, there is potential habitat underneath the onsite blue oak canopy containing undisturbed vegetation where dubious pea could grow. Mitigation Measure BIO1 would bring potential impacts to the dubious pea to less than significant.

Henderson’s Bent Grass: Henderson’s bent grass is an annual grass native to northern California and Oregon. This species usually inhabits vernal pool and swale habitats, but it can also be found in moist areas in annual grasslands. It is associated with valley grasslands and ephemeral wetlands, and sometimes with riparian understory communities. The wetland features located onsite could provide habitat for Henderson’s bent grass. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would bring potential impacts to the Henderson’s bent grass to less than significant.

Animals
Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: The BRA identifies impacts to one special status wildlife species that has the potential to occur in the Project area, Townsend’s big-eared bat. Although no maternity roost habitat exists, there is potential foraging habitat onsite and in the adjacent oak woodland to the northwest of the site. According to the BRA, the development of the Project site would cause a less than significant impact to foraging Townsend’s big-eared bats because the foraging habitat on the adjacent properties will continue to support abundant prey items for this species.

The Project would cause an incremental increase in light pollution. While there is pre-existing light pollution from the residential areas surrounding the Project site, the BRA cites concerns over the Zinco project adding light pollution to bat foraging habitat to the north which could affect prey behavior. However, the City does not regulate lighting in residential zoning districts and considers this Project’s onsite and offsite effects with regards to lighting to be less than significant. When considered in the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole, this residential subdivision would not substantially alter the amount of light Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 12
pollution on nearby habitat. While the BRA identifies impacts to the Townsend’s big-eared bat, these impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Nesting Birds: The Project will result in the removal of native blue oak and gray pine trees. Tree removal and construction activities during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31), such as tree removal and noise-generating construction activities that disturb a nesting bird or destroy active nests, could result in impacts to nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to less than significant. b) The Project site is not adjacent to any lakes, rivers, or streams and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) The wetlands delineation prepared for the Project identified four vernal wetland features totaling 0.18 acres. These areas contain deep rutting of the surface soil caused by mechanical clearing of vegetation and all-terrain vehicle off roading activity. The soil in the areas with vernal pools is Redding gravelly loam with a hardpan found to be at a depth of 11 inches deep. This hardpan causes water to perch and remain close to the surface in several areas on the property during the rainy season and into the spring. Vehicles have formed depressions in the topsoil above the hardpan which prevents water from draining laterally, creating pools. While the biological resource assessment ruled out the potential for special status vernal pool plant and animal species to occur onsite, these vernal pools are potentially Waters of the United States or, more likely, Waters of the State.

The filling of these small, human-created, isolated shallow pools that do not have the potential to support special status species is considered a less than significant impact. However, the filling of Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State does require an agency permit which may include mitigation measures. Federal and State policies promote a no net loss of wetland resources. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, but a common approach is the purchase by the developer of mitigation credits at an established wetland mitigation bank. By law, the filling of Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The applicant would be required to do any mitigation required by one of those permits. While mitigation measures are not necessary for the purposes of this environmental document, acquisition of the required permits will be a part of the Project’s conditions of approval in addition to the law. d) No known established wildlife corridors or nursery sites occur within or in the vicinity of the site. Because the Project site is 750 feet away from the nearest riparian corridor, the Project would not inhibit wildlife movement along it. While the BRA discussed light pollution and its effects on nocturnal wildlife movement, as discussed above, the City does not regulate lighting in residential zoning districts and considers this Project’s onsite and offsite effects with regards to lighting to be less than significant. When considered in the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole, this residential subdivision would not substantially alter the amount of light pollution in the area. Furthermore, the only nocturnal special status animal species identified as having the potential to occur onsite is the Townsend’s big-eared bat. This species is discussed in subsection “a” above and the Project is not expected to alter the bat’s ability to move through the area. Impacts to wildlife corridors and nursery sites would be less than significant.
e) In March of 2024 there were 144 trees on site with more than a 6-inch diameter at breast height (DBH). On April 4, 2024 it was brought to the City’s attention that unpermitted tree removal was occurring on the Project site. Staff visited the site and asked workers to cease all activity. Fifty-nine (59) trees over 6-inches DBH had already been removed. This illegal tree removal violated Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, of the Redding Zoning Ordinance by removing the trees without a permit. Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the applicable penalties for violations of Chapter 18.45. A monetary fine was issued in accordance with Chapter 18.45 and payment of this fine will remedy the violation in conformance with the City’s tree management regulations.

The Project proposes to save six of the remaining trees over 6-inches DBH. The conditions of approval require a tree preservation plan be submitted with the final grading plan for all trees designated to be preserved. Because the prior illegal removal of trees is being resolved separately from this Project in accordance with the Municipal Code, and the Project has identified trees to be preserved with a tree preservation plan, the Project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) No habitat conservation plans or other similar plans have been adopted for the area of the Project site proposed for development.

No impact would occur in this regard.

Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 13
Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element, 2045 City of Redding Municipal Code, Chapter 18.45, Tree Management Ordinance City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, 2024, SCH #2022050300 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Natural Diversity Database Biological Resources Assessment, Zinco Subdivision Project 3150 and 3152 Jordan Lane, Redding, California, VESTRA Resources Inc., October 2024
Zinco Property Wetlands Delineation, Wildland Resource Managers, December 2024 Wildland Resource Managers Oak Evaluation Form, Location Zinco/Redding, May 2, 2024 California Native Plant Society, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rare-plant-ranks, accessed March 5, 2025 Tentative Subdivision Map Application S-2022-02416, Sheet 3, Existing Site and Tree Survey, January 8, 2024 Mitigation:

MM-BIO-1: The applicant shall have a pre-construction rare plant survey of the proposed disturbance area or other Project features that may impact special status species of the Project site conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate survey window (blooming period) for rare and endangered plants that have the potential to occur within the Project site if such a survey has not been provided to the City. Surveys shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. If present, special status plant species plant populations will be flagged and, if possible, avoided during construction. If the population cannot be avoided during construction, a plan will be developed for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife which may include transplanting the plant population, compensation, or other measures established by that agency.

MM-BIO-2: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven (7) days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist. The survey shall be provided to the CDFW. If construction activities cease for a period greater than seven (7) days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

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?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
Discussion
a-c) An archeological inventory survey was conducted by Brian F. Hill, M.A. Archeology, registered archeologist for Flowra. This included a records search of the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, and a pedestrian surface inspection. The report concluded that the site does not constitute a significant historical resource or unique archaeological resource and that no significant historical resources or unique archaeological resources were identified within the area of potential effects (APE) during the survey. While archaeological and historic clearance of the Project site is recommended in the report, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of an unanticipated archeological find. The City’s Standard Subdivision Conditions require that if, in the course of development, any archeological, historical, or paleontological resources are uncovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be stopped Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 14
immediately and the City of Redding shall be notified. A qualified archaeological professional must then be retained by the developer to investigate the discovered cultural object to determine its significance. If the cultural object is deemed potentially significant by the archaeologist, appropriate treatment and measures shall be followed in accordance with applicable laws, as reviewed and approved by the City, prior to the resumption of work in the affected area.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Flowra, February, 2023 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Discussion
a) The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. 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. Long-term use of electricity for operations within the subdivision such a lighting, cooking, heating, and cooling is expected to be less than significant due to the small-scale residential nature of the Project. b) The Project will not conflict with any State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 15
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Discussion:
a, c, d) There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake faults designated in the Redding area of Shasta County. There are no other documented earthquake faults in the immediate vicinity that pose a significant risk, and the site is located in an area designated in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan as having a low ground-shaking potential. The Project is not located on or near any documented landslide hazard areas, and there is no evidence of ground slippage or subsidence occurring naturally on the site. The type of soils and underlying geology are identified as having a low potential for liquefaction. No portion of the site falls within the 100-year floodplain of the Sacramento River or any creek. b) The Project site contains two primary soil classifications:
• Newtown gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded. This is a well-drained soil that formed in old alluvium from mixed sources. It generally supports grasses, forbs, oaks, shrubs, and grey pines. The areas of Newtown soils are used as range, dryland, pasture, wildlife habitat, and for watershed. Permeability is slow, runoff is rapid, and the hazard of further erosion is high.
• Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, moist, MLRA 17. This is a well-drained soil that contains an indurated hardpan.

They are underlain by old mixed alluvium. Supported vegetation includes annual grasses, forbs, manzanita, and blue oak.

Below its acidic surface layer and subsoil is a layer of indurated very gravelly hardpan starting at a depth of about 13 inches.

Stratified mixed alluvial material is about 15 inches below the hardpan.

The Project is subject to certain erosion-control requirements mandated by existing City and State regulations. These requirements include:
• City of Redding Grading Ordinance. This ordinance requires the application of “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) in accordance with the City Erosion and Sediment Control Standards Design Manual (Redding Municipal Code Section

16.12.060, Subsections C, D, E). In practice, specific erosion-control measures are determined upon review of the final Project improvement plans and are tailored to project-specific grading impacts. • California Regional Water Quality Board “Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.” This permit somewhat overlaps the City’s Grading Ordinance provision by applying state standards for erosion-control measures during construction of the Project.

Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 16
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board “Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” This plan emphasizes stormwater best management practices and is required as part of the Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.

The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe and ensure the implementation of practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits. Any appropriate permits required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address impacts to Waters of the United States.
• State Water Resources Control Board Permits. Any appropriate permits required from the State Water Resources Control Board to address impacts to Waters of the State.

Actions for compliance with these regulations are addressed under standard conditions of approval, which are uniformly applied to all land development projects. Since the Project is subject to uniformly applied ordinances and policies, and the overall risk of erosion is low, potential impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation are less than significant. e) The proposed Project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal. No impact has been identified. f) No unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites are known to exist on the Project site.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Safety Element 2045, figures PS-1 (Ground Shaking Potential) and PS-2 (Liquefaction Potential)
City of Redding General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, 2024, SCH #2022050300 City of Redding Grading Ordinance, RMC Chapter 16.12
City of Redding Standard Specifications, Grading Practices City of Redding Standard Development Conditions for Discretionary Approvals Soil Survey of Shasta County Area, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, August 1974
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42
State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Regulations Related to Construction Activity, Storm Water Permits and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Discussion:
a, b) The City of Redding General Plan (GP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded this impact is cumulatively significant and unavoidable as it pertains to buildout of the GP and is addressed in the GP EIR’s CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The EIR indicates that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are projected to result in a slight decrease in emissions from the CEQA baseline established by the GP EIR but not result in the 85 percent reduction from existing conditions necessary to ensure the City is on a trajectory to achieve the long-term reductions goals of AB 1279 and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals for year 2045.

The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, neither Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 17
the SCAQMD, CARB, nor any other state or regional agency has yet adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that applies to the Project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the Project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.

The Project is consistent with policies of the GP that address lowering VMT through infill development, including but not limited to the following:
• Prioritizing infill development.

The Project is also consistent with the applicable Shasta Regional Transportation Agency’s Regional Transportation Plan’s goals, including:
• Encouraging transportation-efficient growth and development where it is supported by current or planned mobility options.

With regard to consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the Scoping Plan addresses a broad range of actions and strategies intended to reduce greenhouse gases such as increasing stringency of carbon fuel standards, adding additional zero-emission vehicles on the state’s roadways, and similar broad-based programs which are not applicable to the Project.

As demonstrated by the above and the analysis provided in the GP EIR, the Project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the GP, the SRTA RTP, and CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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? X 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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
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? X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? X Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 18
Discussion:
a-d) The nature of the Project as a single-family residential subdivision does not present a significant risk related to hazardous materials or emissions. There are no documented hazardous material sites located on or near the Project. e) The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. There would be no impact on public safety in this regard.
f) The Project does not involve a use or activity that could interfere with emergency-response or emergency-evacuation plans for the area.
g) While the Project site is located within the Very High Fire Severity Zone, the nature of the Project will require extensive grading and removal of trees and other natural fire fuels throughout the site to accommodate potential housing development. City and state ordinances require, for residential development with more than 49 units, multiple secondary access points. Secondary access points allow residents to safely remove themselves from potentially harmful or fatal situations involving fires. The Project has access to Lake Boulevard via Santa Rosa Way and to Keswick Dam Road via Deodar Way. Additionally, California Residential Building Code requires dwellings to be constructed using flame-resistant materials and include fire sprinklers within the dwelling and under the roof. Impacts would be considered less than significant.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Safety Element, 2045, including figures PS-4 (Very High Fire Severity Zone) and PS-6 (Wildfire Evacuation Routes)
Mitigation:

None necessary.

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? X b) Substantially decease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
X
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:

X
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 off-site;
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? X
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
X
Discussion:
a) Since the Project would be served by City sanitary sewer service, the Project would not involve any permitted discharges of waste material into ground or surface waters. Construction and operation of the Project would not violate any water quality standards established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) in its Basin Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. Water pollution best management practices are required and will be incorporated into the improvement plans for the Project. The City’s construction standards require that all projects prepare an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) prior to construction to address water pollution control. The ESCP will ensure that water quality standards are not substantially affected by the Project during construction. b) The Project would utilize City water service for domestic uses and fire protection. The proposed Project would not impact groundwater supplies.
c) The Project is subject to standard requirements defined under Section VII, Geology and Soils, that minimize the potential for erosion or siltation on or off site. The final improvement plans for the Project must also incorporate specific design measures intended to limit pollutant discharges in stormwater from urban improvements as established under the State’s National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) general permit, which the City is now obligated to follow in accordance with State Water Quality Control Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ. Feasible Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated in the final design of the Project’s storm-drain system, as approved by the City Engineer, based on the BMPs listed in the latest edition of the California Storm Water Quality Association’s Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook.

Policy 1806 requires that all subdivision development include stormwater detention facilities designed to maintain existing predevelopment rates of runoff during a 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm event with a six-hour duration. The Project application includes a stormwater hydrology analysis prepared by Horrocks that concludes that the Zinco Project can manage the storm water runoff in a way that maintains or reduces pre-project runoff volumes in the post-Project condition as required by the City of Redding.

The site discharges to both the Sulphur Creek Basin and the Boulder Creek Basin. For the drainage basin going to Sulphur Creek, on-site storm water will be directed, via surface flow and storm drain infrastructure, to a vegetated infiltration basin located in the northwest of the development. Outflow from the basin will be restricted to pre-Project levels and directed to an outlet control structure located at the northwest end of the Project which will allow stormwater to flow westerly, in line with the pre-development drainage pattern. For the drainage basin going to Boulder Creek, on-site storm water will be directed, via surface flow and storm drain infrastructure, to a vegetated infiltration basin located in the northeast of the development. Outflow from the basin will be restricted to pre-Project levels and directed to Deodar by way of an under-sidewalk drain in line with the pre-development drainage pattern.
d) The Project site is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone. e) The Project would not conflict with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element 2045 City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Safety Element 2045 City of Redding Preliminary Drainage Report for Zinco Subdivision, Horrocks, June 2023 Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain regulations, FIRM map 06089C1535G, dated March 17, 2011 City of Redding Storm Drain Master Plan, Montgomery-Watson Engineers 1993 Mitigation:

None necessary.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 19 Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
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? X
b) 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 environmental effect?
X
Discussion:
a) The Project does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. It is on an undeveloped parcel flanked by local collector streets and established single-family development. The site is not used by members of a community as a throughway. b) The Project is compatible with the applicable policies and regulations of the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is not in conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Community Development and Design Element, 2045 City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element, 2045 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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? X 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?
X
Discussion:
a, b) The Project site is not identified in the General Plan as having any known mineral-resource value or as being located within any “Critical Mineral Resource Overlay” area.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element, 2045 City of Redding General Plan Land Use 2045 Diagram
Mitigation:

None necessary.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 20 Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

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?
X
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X 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?
X
Discussion:
a, b) Due to the nature of the Project as a residential subdivision, it would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would not result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

During the construction of the proposed Project, there will be a temporary increase in noise in the Project vicinity above existing ambient noise levels. The most noticeable construction noise will be related to grading, utility excavation, and land-clearing activity. The City's Grading Ordinance (RMC Chapter 16.12.120.H) limits grading-permit-authorized activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No operations are allowed on Sunday. Since heavy construction work associated with the Project is limited in scope and by existing regulation, the anticipated noise impact to neighboring residents is considered less than significant.
c) The Project is not located within two miles of a public airport and is not in an airport land use plan. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Noise Element, 2045
City of Redding General Plan 2045, Transportation Element, 2045 City of Redding Zoning Ordinance Redding Municipal Code, Section 18.40.100 City of Redding Grading Ordinance Redding Municipal Code, Section 16.12.120 City of Redding Municipal Airport Area Plan
Mitigation:

None necessary.

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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Discussion:
a, b) The Project would create opportunity for the construction of new residential units as planned and anticipated by the Redding General Plan. The Project is similar in character to that in the surrounding area. The Project would not induce unplanned population _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 21 Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
growth and does not propose growth or development not anticipated by the General Plan. The Project does not displace any people or housing. The Project will provide housing.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Housing Element, 2020-2028 Mitigation:

None necessary.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: 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? X
Police Protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Discussion:

Fire and Police Protection:

The City would provide police and fire protection to the Project from existing facilities and under existing service levels. The size of the Project would not mandate the need for additional police or fire facilities.

The Project is subject to Chapter 16.20 of the Redding Municipal Code, which requires new development to pay a citywide fire facilities impact fee calculated to mitigate a project’s fair share of cumulative impacts to the City’s fire-protection infrastructure based upon improvements necessary to accommodate new development under the City’s General Plan.

Schools:

The Project is located in the Gateway Unified School District and may contribute to the total student enrollment in this district. However, a school-facility impact (in-lieu) fee exists, as provided under State law that is paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each residential unit to address school-facility funding necessitated by the effects of growth citywide.

Parks:

The Project will not cause a physical deterioration of an existing park facility or cause an adverse physical impact associated with a new park facility. The Project is subject to Chapter 16.20 of the Redding Municipal Code, which requires new residential development to pay a citywide park and recreation-facilities impact fee calculated to mitigate a project’s fair share of cumulative impacts to the City’s parks and recreation infrastructure based upon improvements necessary to accommodate new development under the City’s General Plan. See discussion under Item XVI (Recreation) below.

Other public facilities:

See discussion under Item XIX (Utilities and Service Systems) below.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Facilities and Services Element 2045 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 22 Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
Mitigation:

None necessary.

XVI. RECREATION:

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? X
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?
X
Discussion:
a) The Project will not cause a physical deterioration of an existing recreation facility or cause an adverse physical impact associated with a new recreation facility. There are no neighborhood or regional parks in the vicinity of this Project. Residents do have the potential to utilize other parks within the City outside the vicinity of the Project. Recreational development fees are collected by the City at the time of issuance of a building permit to offset any impacts to regional park facilities and to raise funds to provide for new recreational facilities. There would not be any potentially significant impacts to recreation associated with the Project. b) The Project does not propose any recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of facilities. There would not be any potentially significant impacts to recreation associated with the Project.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Natural Resources Element, 2045 City of Redding General Plan, Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element, 2045 City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Facilities and Services Element, 2045 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Discussion:
a) Access to the subdivision would be derived from Deodar Way. While Deodar Way hasreduced right-of-way width directly adjacent _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 23
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 24
to the Project site, the City's Traffic Engineer has determined that the number of average vehicle trips that would be generated with development of the Project would not trigger any requirements with regard to widening this right-of-way. The City’s Fire Marshall has also concurred that adequate street width exists for emergency access. a) The General Plan Environmental Impact Report concluded this impact to be less than significant. The analysis conducted for the EIR found that the forecasted rate of VMT per resident under Year 2045 conditions with GP would not exceed the established regional threshold as the VMT rate per resident will be below the established 15.6 VMT per resident. This finding is consistent with the 2018 RTP/SCS, which noted that Redding has the lowest rate of VMT per capita in Shasta County, and the shortest average trip lengths in the County, reflecting the proximity of homes, jobs and services within Redding.

The number and type of dwelling units and therefore projected traffic generated by the Project is consistent with the assumptions made for Traffic Analysis Zone number 550 (TAZ) used in the Shasta SIMM model to evaluate the VMT impacts of the General Plan. The Project will not conflict with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3(b). b) The new streets proposed with the Project do not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Such hazardous design features are not proposed by or required from the Project. The site is in an area zoned for residential development. The entering and exiting of vehicles such as cars, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles is an existing condition that is expected for this area. While the intersection of Jordan Lane and Deodar Way includes non-standard dimensions, this is an existing condition without significant nexus and proportionality to require the Project to fix it. No significant increase in transportation related hazards is expected. c) Access to the site is provided by way of Jordan Lane via Deodar Way. The Redding Fire Marshal has deemed this to be adequate access for emergency vehicles and fire protection.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Transportation Element, 2045 City of Redding General Plan 2045, Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element 2045 City of Redding Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan, Update City of Redding Traffic Impact Fee Program
City of Redding Active Transportation Plan, 2018
Redding Area Bus Authority Short Range Transit Plan, January 2024 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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
X
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.

X
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 25
Discussion:
a, b) The Project was referred to the appropriate tribal entities and no request for consultation was received. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) did a record search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) and generated a negative result for the presence of specific-site information. Because the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area, Flowra contacted Native American tribes from a list provided by NAHC who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. Contact was attempted with all contacts provided on that list and no response was received. Project effects with regard to tribal cultural resources are expected to be less than significant.

Documentation:

Letters sent to Redding Rancheria, the Wintu Tribe of Northern California, and Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, dated April 24, 2023.

Archaeological Inventory Survey, Flowra, February, 2023 Mitigation:

None necessary.

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 or wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
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?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Discussion:
a) The proposed development does not generate the need for relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. b) Potable water is available from the City to serve the Project with adequate pressure and flows for fire suppression. The demands of the Project can be accommodated within the City’s existing water resources. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c) The Project will utilize the City’s sanitary sewer system to dispose of wastewater. Adequate sewer capacity and wastewater treatment are available in the City’s existing system.
d) The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
of solid waste reduction goals. The City provides solid waste disposal (curbside pick-up) service, which homes in the subdivision would utilize. Adequate capacity is available to serve the needs of the Project without need of special accommodation. e) The Project will comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

The City regulates and operates programs that promote the proper disposal of toxic and hazardous materials from households, including those created by the Project.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Facilities and Services Element, 2045City of Redding Water and Sewer Atlas Mitigation:

None necessary.

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?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose projects occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
X
c) Require installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
Discussion:
a) While the Project is located within a mapped very high fire severity zone, it would not impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The subdivision has access to Keswick Dam Road to the north via Deodar Way and access to Lake Boulevard via Deodar Way and Santa Rosa Way.
b) The Project will be graded to facilitate the construction of the subdivision and will be cleared of most fire fuel on-site. Maintenance of the vegetation surrounding the Project site is and would continue to be the responsibility of the neighboring property owners.

The development of the subdivision, along with its associated improvements, will make the existing neighborhood less susceptible to fire risk by removing fire fuel and adding non-combustible surfaces such as pavement. There is no identified factor that would exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire. c) All utilities associated with the Project would be placed underground where they do not pose a fire risk. No generators or outdoor fuel tanks are proposed with the Project as the development would be required to connect to City utilities. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that could exacerbate wildfire risks. d) The Project would not expose people or structures to downstream flooding or landslides. The Project site is relatively flat and does not contain any waterways. Because of this, it is less likely to be susceptible to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.

Documentation:

City of Redding General Plan 2045, Public Safety Element 2045 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 26
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 27
Mitigation:

None necessary.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

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 selfsustaining 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?
X
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)? X
c) Does the project have potential environmental effects which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Discussion:

Based on the analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study, the following findings can be made:
a) If unmitigated, the Project has the potential to impact special-status species (Redding checkerbloom, dubious pea, Henderson’s bent grass) as well as species of migratory birds and raptors. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 are established to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The Project has the potential to degrade wildlife habitat in general due to erosion and sedimentation resulting from grading and construction of Project infrastructure. However, the Project conditions as identified under Hydrology/Water Quality have been established to reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. b) As discussed in Item III, the Project will contribute to regionwide cumulative air quality impacts. However, under policy of the General Plan, application of Standard Mitigation Measures (SMMs) and Best Available Mitigation Measures (BAMMS) will reduce potential impacts from this Project to a level less than significant. c) As discussed herein, the Project does not have characteristics which could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation:

MM-BIO-1: The applicant shall have a pre-construction rare plant survey of the proposed disturbance area or other Project features that may impact special status species of the Project site conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate survey window (blooming period) for rare and endangered plants that have the potential to occur within the Project site if such a survey has not been provided to the City. Surveys shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. If present, special status plant species plant populations will be flagged and, if possible, avoided during construction. If the population cannot be avoided during construction, a plan will be developed for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife which may include transplanting the plant population, compensation, or other measures established by that agency.

Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division Initial Study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ S-2022-02416/Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning 28
MM-BIO-2: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven (7) days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist. The survey shall be provided to the CDFW. If construction activities cease for a period greater than seven (7) days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Attachment A
Figure 1 – Location Map
Figure 2 – Cover Sheet (Tentative Map)
Figure 3 – Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utilities
Figure 4 – Existing Site and Tree Survey
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning ~
~ !>
ll
Iu
C---- <l'.
::,::

I
(/)
~
I

E KESWICK DAM RD
I \

I/ '------
~
n I '- \_ .._
\ [3150 JORDAN LN ~ '------ , 3250 JORDAN LN
~ I,
~ ,"'-"'-""-. "'- "'- I I I I I I \ ~
~ p
~'( !llullltJJ~ «'t'o
f---F=E f-- r7 I F ,_ ~
f-- 7 I
Z (
JORDAl'J rn ,---- ------1 Lt(
~~l
g ~
~
~ !
~
~ "' ;
~
GIS DIVISION +

N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
w E DATE PRODUCED
JANUARY 20, 2023
L-----------1
s 200 400 Feet
P:\Planning\ProProjects\S\S-2022-02416.aprx
~I
o:::,
0J 0 , ~ :
:>-! o:::,
z
w
I ~

I I I I
I I
I
7 I
[
I <-------- I
~n I
<-------- I---
~ I I I I 117 1 s
N 1- ) --- l-1--- 1/-: 1 0::: <-------- u I <l'. <l'. ,u i n- 0 - 1- 1 0 <-------- ~- '--' w '--' I I 0 0 I I ·~ I [

SANTA ROSA WAY
LJ ~
~
- -
V

LOCATION MAP
S-2022-02416

ZINCO HOLDING, LLC
3150 & 3250 JORDAN LANE
AP# 114-050-005 & -006
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w
w
pp
pp
pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w
w
pp
pp
pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
SS
SS
8'' W
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
Y D H
D
Y
H
S
NN
NN
NN
D
H Y
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS S 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD
6'' SD 6'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
SD
S88°49'55"W 132.58'
N01°12'26"W 50.00' N01°12'26"W 65.00'
L=35.10'
R=1028.00'
Δ= 001°57'23"
N00°43'07"E 128.85'
S88°49'55"W 71.77' S88°49'55"W 65.00' S88°49'55"W 65.04' S88°49'55"W 68.04' S88°49'55"W 65.03' S88°49'55"W 94.26' N88°48'44"E 65.00' N88°48'44"E 65.04'
N88°48'44"E 23.31'
L=16.30'
R=20.00'
Δ= 046°42'29"
L=36.45'
R=50.00'
Δ= 041°45'59"
L=35.00'R=50.00'
Δ= 040°06'31"
L=35.00'R=50.00'
Δ= 040°06'25"
L=16.30'
R=20.00'
Δ= 046°42'29"
N88°48'44"E 25.18'
N88°48'44"E 65.00' N88°47'51"E 65.04' N88°48'44"E 50.92' N01°12'26"W 85.57'
S00°43'07"W 128.85'
N88°47'34"E 49.61' N88°47'34"E 62.00' N88°47'34"E 65.02' N88°47'34"E 67.04' N88°47'34"E 51.71' N00°39'29"E 135.66'
S00°43'07"W 128.87'
S26°41'52"W 30.29'
S89°47'17"W 102.26'
N15°38'15"W 121.39'
N00°48'50"W 128.30'
L=32.09'R=20.00'
Δ= 091°56'13"
L=30.76'
R=20.00'
Δ= 088°08'05"

J O R D A N L A N E

D E O D A R W A Y
PARCEL 6
8,371 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 7
8,374 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 8
8,241 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 9
7,229 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 11
14,326 SQ. FT. PARCEL 13 8,190 SQ. FT. PARCEL 14 8,374 SQ. FT. PARCEL 15 8,205 SQ. FT. PARCEL 16 8,787 SQ. FT.

L=52.02'R=50.00'
Δ= 059°36'37"
L=47.85'R=50.00'
Δ= 054°50'05"
L=31.42'R=20.00'
Δ= 090°00'00"
L=31.42'R=20.00'
Δ= 090°01'10"
N00°43'07"E 56.03'
N00°43'07"E 128.82'
S00°43'07"W 96.94'
S06°07'47"E 10.00'
N48°42'18"E 10.00'
S51°04'51"E 10.00'
N00°43'07"E 97.15'
N08°31'46"E 10.00'
N00°43'07"E 128.33'

17.0'
R.O.W.
33'
R.O.W.
33'
R.O.W.
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744 743 742 741 740
749
748
747
746
1 2
3 4
56' R.O.W.

R=50'
56'
R.O.W.

N88°49'55"E 325.38'
N88°49'55"E 292.36'
S00°39'29"W 294.15'
S00°10'26"W 16.50'
S88°47'34"W 273.50'
S88°47'35"W 325.74' N00°46'44"E 16.51'
(N) R O A D 'A'
(N) R O A D 'B'
EX. 16.5'

PATENT EASEMENT
(TO BE ABANDONED)
EX. 16.5'

PATENT EASEMENT
(TO BE ABANDONED)
PARCEL 1
9,497 SQ. FT.

N00°46'44"E 70.04' N00°46'44"E 65.04' PARCEL 2 8,746 SQ. FT.

N00°46'44"E 65.04'
N00°46'44"E 313.96'
N00°46'44"E 113.34'
N00°44'57"E 25.66' N00°44'57"E 113.25'
S88°49'55"W 56.03'
PARCEL 3
8,633 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 5
9,156 SQ. FT.

N88°48'44"E 51.15'
PARCEL 10
15,549 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 12
8,246 SQ. FT.

N88°47'34"E 89.54'
PROPOSED 15'
P.S.E.

SANITARY SEWER
STUB FOR PARCEL 11

SANITARY SEWER
STUB FOR PARCEL 10
N00°39'29"E 158.50'
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
L=32.28'
R=50.00'
Δ= 036°59'27"
S00°44'57"W 108.21'
PROPOSED 15'
P.S.E

PROPOSED
15' STORM DRAIN

EASEMENT
S88°47'34"W 118.11' N01°12'26"W 0.50'
5' P.S.E.
5' P.S.E.
5' P.S.E.
15' SETBACK 5' P.S.E.
5' P.S.E.

0.5' R.O.W.

DEDICATION

0.5' R.O.W.

DEDICATION

EXISTING ROAD TOBE SLURRY SEALED

AND STRIPED

EXISTING ROAD TOBE SLURRY SEALED

AND STRIPED
S01°12'26"E 4.26'
PARCEL 4
15,016 SQ. FT.

N88°47'34"E 135.68'
N88°47'34"E 133.43'
N88°47'34"E 132.65'
L=31.42'
R=20.00'
Δ= 090°00'00"
15' SD EASEMENT
& 12' ACCESS ROAD
S00°43'07"W 91.24'
65'
15' SD EASEMENT
& 12' ACCESS ROAD
56' (LOCAL STREET) R.O.W.

R.O.W.

R.O.W.

2.5'5' 16' 16' 2.5' 5'
10'

TRAVEL LANE
8'
PRKNG
2%
A
10'

TRAVEL LANE
8'
PRKNG
2%
B B A

TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED ROAD 'A'
SCALE: 1"=10'
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
P.S.E.

P.S.E.
5' 4.5' 4.5' 5'
56' (LOCAL STREET) R.O.W.

R.O.W.

R.O.W.

2.5'5' 16' 16' 2.5' 5'
10'

TRAVEL LANE
8'
PRKNG
2%
A
10'

TRAVEL LANE
8'
PRKNG
2%
B B A

TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED ROAD 'B'
SCALE: 1"=10'
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
P.S.E.

P.S.E.
5' 4.5' 4.5' 5'
33'
R.O.W.

R.O.W.

6.25' 2.5' 16' 16' 2.5'
C 2% 2% C

TYPICAL SECTION - EXISTING 'JORDAN LANE'
SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50'
C 2.5' ROLL CURB & GUTTER - D38

16.5'

6.25'
SO. LINE OF N.1/2 OF S.W.1/4
OF S.W.1/4, SECTION 14
33'
R.O.W.

9.5' 2.5' 18'
C 2%

TYPICAL SECTION - EXISTING 'DEODAR WAY'
SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50'
C 2.5' ROLL CURB & GUTTER - D38
3'
OLD PL

EXISTING

CENTERLINE
33'
R.O.W.

2.5' 18'
B 2%

TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED 'DEODAR WAY'
SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50'
3'
OLD PL

EXISTING

CENTERLINE
5'
A
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
5'
P.S.E. 3:1
33'
R.O.W.

2.5'6.25' 16' 16' 2.5'
B 2% 2% B

TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED 'JORDAN LANE'
SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50'

16.5'
SO. LINE OF N.1/2 OF S.W.1/4
OF S.W.1/4, SECTION 14
5'
A
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
PROPOSED 0.5'
R.O.W. DEDICATION
5'
R.O.W.

P.S.E. 3:1
H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 1.dwg - TSM - SH1 - 1/08/2024 02:24pm, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 12

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com
1 of
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

01.08.24 3
1 OWNER
ZINCO HOLDING, LLC.
20083 SUNRISE DRIVE
REDDING, CA 96003

ENGINEERHORROCKS
PO BOX 1307
ANDERSON, CA 96007

PROJECT ADDRESS
3150, 3250 JORDAN LANE
REDDING, CA 96003

WATER/SEWER

CITY OF REDDING

ELECTRICITY
REU

TELEPHONE
AT&T

EXISTING USE
VACANT

PROPOSED USE

RESIDENTIAL
APN
114-050-005114-050-006

TOTAL AREA

4.42 ACRES
ZONING
APN: 114-050-005
EXISTING ZONING: RS-3
PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5
APN: 114-050-006
EXISTING ZONING: RS-3
PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5

GENERAL PLAN
(114-050-005) - 3.5 TO 6(114-050-006) - 2 TO 3.5

ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COVER SHEET
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ADJACENT PARCEL NO. INDEX 12
3 4
SNOW, MICHELLE (114 - 040 - 008)
TONEY, JULIA (114 - 040 - 012)
WARD, JERRY (114 - 050 - 040)
SNAVELY, PAULA (114 - 040 - 016)
LEGEND

RECORD BOUNDARY

ADJACENT PARCEL
RIGHT OF WAYEXISTING 6" WATER LINE
(VALVE, METER, & HYDRANT)
EXISTING 6" SEWER LINE
(MANHOLE)

PROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SSMH

EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
(POWER POLE)

PROPOSED HMAEXISTING HMA
6" W

R/W R/W
6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610
SITE

OASIS ROAD

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
HWY 273 INTERSTATE - 5 LAKE BOULEVARD SANTA ROSA WAY DEODAR WAY JORDAN
LANE

KESWICK DAM

BOULEVARD
(114 - 040 - 017)
&
No. 82097 NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
H

O R R O C K
S
E

N G I N E E R
S
0 30' 60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
CONNECT PROPOSED 8" WATER
TO EXISTING 6" STUB
S - 2022 - 02416
6" SS PROPOSED SEWER LINE

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED CB No. 3

BUILDING SETBACK LINE
5' PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT
0 0 0
I I
0 0 0
0 I I
I
---------,---
' I
I I
--6"ss--
--eel--
0 0
I I
I
I I
I
}
-------,@>---
-----E!I---
0 0 0 0
Ltf- --
,,2,~.,~i,.
0 0
I
//
n "
I
•
U)
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 857
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding)

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w
w
pp
pp
pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w
w
pp
pp
pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
SS
SS
8'' W
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
Y D H
D
Y
H
S
NN
NN
NN
D
Y H
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS S 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD
6'' SD 6'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
SD

J O R D A N L A N E

D E O D A R W A Y
33'
R.O.W.
33'
R.O.W.
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744 743 742 741 740
749
748
747
746
(N) R O A D 'A'
(N) R O A D 'B'
OUT:740.85 8"
RIM:747.89EX. SS MANHOLE
OUT:740.37 8"
IN:740.37 8"IN:740.46 8"RIM:747.51

SS MANHOLE
IN:739.69 8"RIM:741.21EX. SS MANHOLE
165.17' of 8" PVC @ 0.40%
111.48' of 8" PVC @ 0.40%

16.5'
R.O.W.
(W)(S)
751 750 749
748
747
744
OUT:742.37 8"
IN:742.57 8"IN:742.57 8"RIM:749.14

SS MANHOLE
EX. SSMH
(C5-22)
EX. SSMH
(C5-61)
(N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3
CORCS 230.00
(N) SDMH
CORCS 260.00
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
EX. WATER METER
8" WATER LINE
(N) 8" SS STUB
(N) FIRE HYDRANT
(N) 5' SIDEWALK
CORCS 131.00 (TYP)
(N) 6" VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER
CORCS 136.00 (TYP)
(N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3
CORCS 230.00 (N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00
(N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3
CORCS 230.00
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
(N) FIRE HYDRANT
(N) TIMBER BARRICADE
C.O.R.C.S. 183.00
(N) FIRE HYDRANT
748

2.1%

2.0%

2.0% 2.3% 2.0%

2.0%

2.1%

2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0%

IMPERVIOUS AREA
(ROADWAY)
26,157 SF

IMPERVIOUS AREA
(ROADWAY)
7,011 SF
(N) BIORETENTION CELL
BOTTOM: 1,090 SF
(N) BIORETENTION CELL
BOTTOM: 562 SF

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%
(N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3
CORCS 230.00
3:1
3:1
3:13:1
(N) AREA DRAIN
W/ 8" OUTLET
(N) UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN
CORCS 190.00 (N) AREA DRAIN
W/ 10" OUTLET
748
749
750
750
750
749
748
DMA #2
DMA #1
480.10' of 8" PVC @ 0.40%
3:1
15' SD EASEMENT
& 12' ACCESS ROAD
752
751
750
749
B
B
A
A

ORIFICE INVERT TO

BE AT OR ABOVE FLOWLINE

OF UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN
65'
15' SD EASEMENT
& 12' ACCESS ROAD
3:1
3:1
3:1
5:1
3:1
3:1
CC
H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 2 - ALT.dwg - TSM - SH2 - 1/08/2024 02:28pm, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 12

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com
2 of
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

01.08.24 3
2 ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITIES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610

DRAINAGE LEGEND

IMPERVIOUS AREADIRECTION OF FLOWDMA BOUNDARY
No. 82097 NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
H

O R R O C K
S
E

N G I N E E R
S
0 30' 60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'

GRADING ANALYSIS
AREA OF DISTURBANCE:VOLUME:

4.42 ACRES
1,500 CU. YDS.
(FILL)
S - 2022 - 02416
DMA #1: WEST SIDE PROJECT
CLIMATE STATION: REDDING AP
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: .06 IN/HR
IMPERVIOUS AREA: 66,154 SQ. FT.

APPLICABLE TREE CREDITS: 11,200 SQ. FT.

DESIGN IMPERVIOUS AREA: 54,954 SQ. FT.

DESIGN STORM DEPTH: .91 IN.

TREATMENT MEASURE: DESIGN STORM
BMP TYPE (1): BIORETENTION CELL (24" SOIL & 36" GRAVEL) BMP TYPE (2): STRIP, AMENDED (18" SOIL)BIORETENTION CELL AREA NEEDED: 1,792 SQ. FT.

BIORETENTION CELL AREA PROVIDED: 1,080 SQ. FT.

BIORETENTION CELL PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 60.27%
STRIP, AMENDED AREA NEEDED: 9,935 SQ. FT.

STRIP, AMENDED AREA PROVIDED: 4,000 SQ. FT.

STRIP, AMENDED PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 40.26%
TOTAL PERCENTAGE COMPLIANT LID AREA: 100.53%
MS4 NOTE:IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS INCLUDE 4,000 SF OFIMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT (INCLUDING HOUSEFOOTPRINT AND DRIVEWAYS) 6" PONDING: 743.50'
100 YR WATER ELEV: 744.35'
1' FREEBOARD (MIN)
BOTTOM: 743.00'
POND TOP: 746.00'
24" AMENDED SOIL
36" GRAVEL STORAGE
3:1 (MAX)* 3:1 (MAX)*
5' (MIN)

VARIED HEIGHT
RETAINING WALL (2' MAX)
CROSS SECTION: "A-A" DMA #1 BIORETENTION CELL
SCALE: NTS
6" PONDING: 746.50'
100 YR WATER ELEV: 747.30'
1' FREEBOARD (MIN)
BOTTOM: 746.00'
POND TOP: 749.00'
24" AMENDED SOIL
36" GRAVEL STORAGE
3:1 (MAX) 3:1 (MAX)
5' (MIN)

VARIED HEIGHT
RETAINING WALL (2' MAX)
12' SD ACCESS ROAD
CROSS SECTION: "B-B" DMA #2 BIORETENTION CELL
SCALE: NTS
TYPICAL LOT: MS4 AREA ANALYSIS
SCALE: NTS
PRELIM FLOORPLAN:
~3,000 SF
D/W CONC: ~1,000 SF

EVERGREEN

TREE (TYP)
18" STRIP, AMENDED
DMA #1: 400 SF/LOTDMA #2: 250 SF/LOT
PSE
ROW
TBW
DMA #2: EAST SIDE PROJECT
CLIMATE STATION: REDDING AP
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: .06 IN/HR
IMPERVIOUS AREA: 31,991 SQ. FT.

APPLICABLE TREE CREDITS: 6,480 SQ. FT.

DESIGN IMPERVIOUS AREA: 25,511 SQ. FT.

DESIGN STORM DEPTH: .91 IN.

TREATMENT MEASURE: DESIGN STORM
BMP TYPE (1): BIORETENTION CELL (24" SOIL & 36" GRAVEL) BMP TYPE (2): STRIP, AMENDED (18" SOIL)BIORETENTION CELL AREA NEEDED: 832 SQ. FT.

BIORETENTION CELL AREA PROVIDED: 562 SQ. FT.

BIORETENTION CELL PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 67.55%
STRIP, AMENDED AREA NEEDED: 4,612 SQ. FT.

STRIP, AMENDED AREA PROVIDED: 1,500 SQ. FT.

STRIP, AMENDED PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 32.52%
TOTAL PERCENTAGE COMPLIANT LID AREA: 100.07%
2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP)
10'-15' STRIP, AMENDED 5' P.S.E. 5' R.O.W. 5' SIDEWALK (TO STREET) TYP LOT (VARIES) CROSS SECTION: "C-C" DMA #1 & 2 STRIP, AMENDED
SCALE: NTS
18" AMENDED SOIL
8' 10.5'
*SIDE WALL SLOPES OF POND TO VARY IN SLOPE, 3:1 SLOPE MAX 12' SD ACCESS ROAD
-
-
\
/
/
/
/
/
I
- -
--
x> YX?YY , ; '
' "/)V vV' />0
J...!-,
u !l
I I 11
I I 11
I!;[
n rr
TT 11 11,
) ) : l,I ; : \.

I (
: I\ I
I I
I ( I
( K
I \
/
I I
1\ :

I \ ;?&0
\
I
: L1 T
___________________________________________________________________ I J
I
\ \" i~:~
1·=~~~~~============E~~~~~r~r--rr--1""""'i~~:::::::::11 • •• V: ( ·/~ > ll, lL 11 I '
~ :II - .111, 1 I; -
' TT ITT' Tl'
r r
r r r r
l
T n; T 11'
T
1;
l'
I L~
u,- ' -
IT'
I I~ II 11= I I~
u !l jj lI
T
l .
~ F
11 111; I I,
T I
L •_11 111•, •l_~,., •I I~ _:__ • ' . -~
I I
I
T Ill
Ill
,,
m T
Ill T Ill I
'II
T
l ll, ill l
· 2~ ·~ - .· ~ -
/
l l ill.
l l ill
11'
II
jj jj
111' I ,.

T
Ill Ill I
'-..

I
I; I; IT ri; m T I I TT IT-' -m- T
l 1·
I 1; I I I I j'
•
U)
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 858
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) s
s
w
w
w
pp
pp
pp

J O R D A N L A N E

D E O D A R W A Y
EX. TBC 752.08 EX. TBC 751.74 EX. TBC 751.41 EX. TBC 751.10 EX. TBC 750.84 EX. TBC 750.58 EX. TBC 750.33 EX. TBC 750.01 EX. TBC 749.64 EX. TBC 749.27 EX. TBC 748.90 EX. TBC 748.53 EX. TBC 748.08
EX. TBC 747.60
EX. TBC 746.61
EX. SSMH 747.97
EX. SSMH 746.28
APN: 114-050-005
EXISTING ZONING: RS-3
PROPOSED ZONING: RM-6
GENERAL PLAN: 3.5 - 6
APN: 114-050-006
EXISTING ZONING: RS-3
PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5
GENERAL PLAN: 2 - 3.5
EX. POWER POLE

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING ROLLED CURB

TO BE REMOVED AND

REPLACED WITH VERTICAL CURB
(ALONG ALL PROPERTY FRONTAGE)

ACCESS RIGHTS TO BE

WAIVED ALONG JORDAN LANE
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
66 67
68 69
71 72
73 78
75 7674
77 79
81 80
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 9192
93 94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
103 102
104
105
106
107
108 109
110 111
112
114
116
115
117
121
118
119 120
113
122
123
124
126 127 128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145 147
148
149
150
151
153
155
0 1
2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 21
22 23
24 25
27 28
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
49 29 30
57 65
70 48 47
146
152
125
26 EX. TBC 747.70
EX. TBC 747.53
EX. POWER POLE

TO BE REMOVED

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC

TO BE UNDERGROUNDED

SLURRY & RESTRIPE HMA

ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE

SLURRY & RESTRIPE HMA

ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE

ACCESS RIGHTS TO BE

WAIVED ALONG DEODAR WAY
1 2
3 4
5 6
EX. TBC 747.38
EX. TBC 747.14
EX. TBC 746.91
H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 3.dwg - TSM - SH3 - 3/20/2025 10:25am, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 12

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com
3 of 3
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

01.08.24 3

ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

EXISTING SITE AND TREE SURVEY

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610
No. 82097
EXP. 03/31/24
H

O R R O C K
S
E

N G I N E E R
S
0 30' 60'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
S - 2022 - 02416

TREE CONSERVATION TABLE
No. TREE DESCRIPTION ACTION COND.
1 13" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.95
2 47" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.90
3 7.5,9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
4 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
5 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.606 14" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.657 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.458 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.609 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED 10 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.67
11 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.63
12 10,10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED13 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.5014 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.3515 25" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.7016 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.4517 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.6018 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.6519 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED 20 8,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
21 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
22 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED23 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED24 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.7025 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.5526 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE CUT27 6,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.5528 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.2529 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.30 30 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.05
31 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE CUT
32 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50
33 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.4034 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED35 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED36 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.8037 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.6038 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED39 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.30 40 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.20
41 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE CUT
42 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
43 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.4444 26" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.4545 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.8046 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED47 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED48 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED49 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED 50 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
51 20" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
52 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
53 29" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.55
54 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED55 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED56 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.6057 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.60 58 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.2059 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.85 60 25" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.20
61 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
62 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
63 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
64 10,17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
65 5,7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED66 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
67 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
68 20" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED69 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED70 11,13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.0 71 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
72 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED73 6,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED74 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED75 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED76 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED77 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED78 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED

TREE CONSERVATION TABLE
No. TREE DESCRIPTION ACTION COND.
79 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED80 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
81 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
82 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
83 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED84 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED85 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED86 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED87 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED88 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED89 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED90 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED 91 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
92 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
93 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.4994 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED95 18" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED96 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED97 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED98 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.7599 9,13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.75 100 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.75
101 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
102 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.55
103 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50
104 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.60
105 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.55106 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50107 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50108 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.30109 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.40 110 19" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.53
111 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.58
112 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.85
113 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.70
114 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.60
115 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.41116 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.46117 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.46118 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.44119 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.41 120 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.43
121 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.40
122 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.60
123 13" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.55
124 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.74
125 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50126 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE DEAD127 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.55128 17" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.65129 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50 130 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.56
131 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
132 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
133 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
134 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
135 5,5,5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED136 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED137 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED138 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.80139 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.95 140 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50
141 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50
142 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.30
143 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.50
144 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
145 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED146 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED147 9,12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED148 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 0.85149 12" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 1.55 150 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.35
151 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1.55
152 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
153 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
154 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED
155 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVED NOTE: TREES SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF A FIELD STUDY OF THE SITE PERFORMED BY WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGERS. FOR DETAILS SEE ZINCOPROPERTY BIOLOGICAL REVIEW (OCTOBER 2022)

LEGEND TREE SURVEY
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (6 TOTAL)
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (76 TOTAL)
REMOVED TREE (73 TOTAL)

CONDITION RATING FOR LANDSCAPE TREES

FORMULA VALUE CONDITION RATING

1.80 - 2.001.50 - 1.791.00 - 1.49

0.60 - 0.990.20 - 0.59

EXCELLENT
GOOD
FAIR
POOR

VERY POOR

HMA AREA TO BE SLURRY SEALED

AND RESTRIPED
/
I
I
-
-
I
( \
( \
I I
// \
-
.,...._ ___, I
-
I
\ I
I
\
-----
•
U)
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 859
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) Attachment B
Archaeological Inventory Survey, Flowra, February, 2023 Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Archaeological Inventory Survey of 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane NOTE TO REVIEWER: Information contained in the Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Zinco Subdivision related to the specific location of prehistoric and historic sites is confidential and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA); therefore, site specific cultural resource investigations are not appended to this Initial Study. Professionally qualified individuals, as determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation, may contact the City of Redding Development Services Department, Planning Division directly in order to inquire about its availability.

Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Attachment C
Biological Resources Assessment
Zinco Subdivision Project 3150 and 3152 Jordan Lane, Redding, California VESTRA Resources Inc., October 2024
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

ZINCO SUBDIVISION PROJECT
3150 & 3152 JORDAN LANE

REDDING, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Zinco Holdings LLC
22717 Silverlode Lane
Palo Cedro, CA 96073
Prepared by
VESTRA Resources Inc.
5300 Aviation Drive
Redding, California 96002
OCTOBER 2024
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................1

1.2 Site Description.........................................................................................................1

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................2

2.1 General Setting.........................................................................................................2

2.2 Soils................................................................................................................................2

2.3 Vegetation Communities.......................................................................................2

2.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................4

2.5 Special-Status Biological Resources .................................................................6

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................7

3.1 Federal Regulations.................................................................................................7

3.2 State Regulatory Requirements .........................................................................8

3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements – Local Tree Protection.........................8

4.0 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY...................................................................10

4.1 Pre-survey Review .................................................................................................10

4.2 Survey Methods .......................................................................................................10

4.3 Survey Results..........................................................................................................11

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................................12

5.1 Special-Status Species..........................................................................................12

5.2 Nesting Birds ............................................................................................................19

5.3 Potential Impacts to Listed Plant Species ...................................................19

5.4 Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds..................................................................19

5.5 Potential Impacts to Rare Natural Communities and Sensitive Habitats................................................................................................................................20

5.6 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat.............................................................20

5.7 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites....................20

5.8 Potential Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the State...............................21

5.9 Compliance w/ Habitat & Natural Community Conservation Plans ..21

5.10 Compliance with Local Policies and Ordinances .......................................21

6.0 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES............................................................23

6.1 Botanical Resources ..............................................................................................23

6.2 Wetlands/Waters of the State..........................................................................23

6.3 Nesting Birds ............................................................................................................23

6.4 Nocturnal Wildlife..................................................................................................24

7.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................25 Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning ii
TABLES
1 Potentially Occurring Special-Status Species....................................................................13

FIGURES
1 General Site Location
2 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Types 3 Blue Oak Woodland (Photograph)
4 Blue Oak Woodland (Photograph)
5 Blue Oak Woodland (Photograph)
6 National Wetlands Inventory
7 Potential Wetland Feature (Photograph)
8 Potential Wetland Feature (Photograph)

APPENDICES
A Proposed Site Layout (Horrocks)
B NRCS Soil Report
C Historical Aerial Images
D U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Species List
E CNDDB Occurrences
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) describes the biological resources present in the proposed Zinco Subdivision in Redding, Shasta County, California. This report includes a project description incorporating proposed conservation measures, study methods, regulatory framework, description of the affected environment, and description of project impacts on sensitive resources.

Past biological review for the project site was conducted by Wildland Resource Managers in October 2022 and July 2024. This initial biological review of the project included two reports: the Zinco Property Biological Review report (October 2022) and an Updated Zinco Biological Review report (July 2024). Comments received in response to public review of the first report identified inadequacies in the report regarding the potential for rare plants and wetlands to be present onsite.

The updated report, prepared in July 2024, was prepared in response to these comments. The purpose of the updated report was to address these comments and to describe the condition of the oak woodland onsite following removal of 66 oak trees, but it did not provide a conclusive assessment of project related impacts. The updated report states that a blue oak woodland is present following the tree removal. The updated report also stated that no wetland features were observed during their July 2024 site visit but includes the locations of potential vernal pools. The past biological reports were found to be inadequate for the purposes of environmental review.

This BRA provides a description of current baseline site conditions and provides an assessment of project impacts to special status biological resources. This BRA also includes an assessment of wetland features on the property.

1.1 Project Description
The proposed project includes the development of a neighborhood subdivision on a 4.66-acre site. The site location is included as Figure 1. The proposed site layout from Horrocks Engineers is included as Appendix A. The proposed project includes subdivision of the two existing parcels into eighteen smaller parcels. New lots would range in size from 126 to 127 feet by 65 to70 feet.

Sites will be prepared by clearing the land of vegetation (except for six mature oak trees), installing utilities, grading lots, and road development. No construction of buildings is proposed in the site plan. A 60-foot wide paved road with a cul-de-sac will be constructed for access to the lots.

1.2 Site Description
The site is located at 3150 and 3152 Jordan Lane, Redding, California 96003. The site consists of two City of Redding parcels identified by Assessor Parcel Nos: 114-050-005 and 114-050-006. The parcels are 2.16 acres and 2.5 acres in size, totaling 4.66 acres. The general site location is shown on Figure 1.

Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Quartz Hill
Buckeye
Mountain
Lakes
Oasis
Gold Hills Golf
Club
Twinview
V)
,..

SITE LOCATION
Keswick
Ck Creek
Kett
die Cree;.,
Grant
V)
Cl
" ..,
Cl
3 "' -:,
....
0 ";<)
-z
~
.. 787 ft
Powerline
Panorama
Quartz Hill
'(\ar\an or
Sunset
•
896ft
Ridgeview
Lakeview
Magnolia
Greenwood
MLK
Country
Heights
Starlight
Riviera Dr
P:\GIS\ 72451 \Figures\BRA\72451 _GeneralSitelayout.pdf Midway
Northpoint
Sulphur Creek
Hill Boulder Cree~
Tanglewood
Bluffs
Browning s,...

Turtle Bay
oana Dr
Garden
Redding
Wyndham
1273 1
Hilltop
Kutras
North Bechelli
Bechel Ii
C:
...J
(1)
.c
u
(1)
al
South Bechelli
Bonnyview
n
::,-
c
...
:,
n
... "' "' -;,:-
;o
a.

Len
Misti,
Res en
Oak H,
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 2

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 General Setting
The topography of the study area is flat and occurs at elevations between approximately 734 and 739 feet above sea level. Precipitation primarily occurs as rain and annual rainfall is approximately 34 inches. Air temperatures range between an average January high of 55 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and an average July high of 98ºF. The year-round average high is approximately 75ºF (Western Regional Climate Center 2006).

2.2 Soils
Soils within the survey area were determined through consultation with the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The most dominant soil type within the survey area is Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, moist. The typical profile of this soil series has a depth to restrictive feature of more than eighty inches, with a duripan present at between 10 and 30 inches in depth. The soil resource report is included as Appendix B.

2.3 Vegetation Communities
Vegetation within the survey area was identified through consultation with the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) followed by a reconnaissance survey during which vegetation communities were identified according to A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009).

CWHR states that the dominant vegetation community onsite is mixed chaparral which may have occurred prior to removal of trees and shrubs from the property. The reconnaissance survey determined that Blue Oak Woodland and Forest Alliance is now present onsite. The area shown as Barren was found to support several oak trees and is a part of the oak woodland community.

A CWHR map of the survey area and surrounding environment is included as Figure 2.

2.3.1 Blue Oak Woodland and Forest
This habitat observed onsite consists of the Blue Oak Woodland and Forest Alliance. Dominant species observed were blue oak (Quercus douglassii) and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana) with a sparse understory of manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversoilobum). Introduced annual grasses and forbs comprise the understory plant community. The herbaceous species observed were wild oats (Avena fatua), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), little rattlesnake grass (Briza minor), and brome (Bromus sp.). Annual forb identification was limited due to the time of year when the survey was completed. Photographs of the oak woodland habitat onsite are shown in Figure 3 to Figure 5.

Dirt roads resulting from public use since prior to 1998, as observed via Google Earth aerial imagery, have resulted in fragmented mature stands of Blue Oak Woodland habitat with heavily disturbed soils within the survey area. As CWHR suggests, the habitat may once have been mixed chapparal, but years of disturbance have transitioned the site to what is now fragmented oak woodlands.

Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning c::::J Approximate Property Boundary
Annual Grassland
[ Barren "' 8
~ Blue Oak-Foothill Pine
Mixed Chaparral
Urban
Valley Oak Woodland
~ ~
~ Blue Oak Woodland o soo 1,000 2,000 FIGURE 2
~ CWHR TYPES N
c; ~ ZINCO PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
~ _s_o_U_RC_E_:_MAX __ A_R_20_2_4_A_E_R_IA_L_P_H_O_TO_G_RA_P_H~; _U_SF_S_C_A_LV_E_G_2_0_2_1 ________ R_ED_D_I_NG_,~C_A_L_IF_O_R_N_IA __ P:\G 15\ 72451 \ Figures\BRA \ 72451 _ Vegetation. pdf Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:
\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx3 Figure 3. Blue Oak Woodland
Figure 4. Blue Oak Woodland
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 4 Figure 5. Blue Oak Woodland. Recently removed trees and shrubs, existing roads visible

2.4 Wetlands
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper (Figure 6) shows no aquatic resources within the survey area. Sulphur Creek, an intermittent stream, exists approximately 750 feet west of the survey area The Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation procedure finds that the presence of three indicators means that surface water is present in sufficient quantity and duration to form a wetland.

The three indicators are: hydrophytic plants, hydric soils, and hydrology. All three indicators must be present to confirm that a wetland is present.

On October 8, 2024, the property was assessed by VESTRA for wetland vegetation or hydrology indicators within any topographic low points onsite, including tire ruts caused by historic vehicle and equipment access during the wet season. A formal wetland delineation was not completed; therefore, a complete soil investigation was not performed.

On the eastern parcel (APN 114-050-005), indicators which warranted closer inspection were observed in the northeast quadrant of the parcel. Hydrology indicators and hydrophytic plant species were observed in this area where small depressions are present (Figure 7). One “facultative wetland” plant species, dwarf woolyheads (Psilocarphus brevissimus), was identifiable within tire ruts and other natural depressions on the ground (Figure 8). No other vegetation was present. The presence of these indicators suggests that a small emergent wetland or vernal pool could be present. According to the project site plan (Appendix A), parcels in this location as well as the bioretention cell could overlap with the potential wetland feature on the eastern parcel.

Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning ~ a. "' 8
C:
;::;
8 l=:J Approximate Property Boundary
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
1111 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
1111 Freshwater Pond
Riverine
~ FIGURE 6
~ Feet NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
~ o 1,ooo 2,ooo 4,ooo ZINCO PROPERTY SUBDIVISION
~ SOURCE: MAX.AR 2024 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH· USFWS 2024 NWI REDDING CALIFORNIA a.: ___________________________________ ......, _______ _, P:\G 15\ 72451 \Figures\BRA \72451 _NWI. pdf Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 5 Figure 7. Potential Wetland Feature
Figure 8. Potential Wetland Feature. Hydrophytic plants and hydrology indicators.

The feature is not a well-defined or uniform pool but exists as a matrix of ruts. Evidence of repeated disturbance to the ground and vegetation in this area can be observed in Google Earth aerial imagery dating back to the 1990s (Appendix C). During the reconnaissance survey, an unknown vehicle was observed driving across the area. The tire tracks and ruts have caused varied depth across the feature; the deepest point is roughly four inches, and most of the feature is shallower at around 1 to 2 inches. The current site conditions are likely remnant from a historic wetland which is now degraded from decades of disturbance. A wetland delineation would be needed to determine the boundary of the wetland feature.

Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 6

2.5 Special-Status Biological Resources

2.5.1 Special-Status Plants
Special-status plant species include plants that are (1) designated as rare by CDFW or USFWS or are listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or ESA; (2) proposed for designation as rare or listing as threatened or endangered; (3) designated as state or federal candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) ranked as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, or 3. A list of regionally occurring specialstatus plant species was compiled based on a review of pertinent literature, the results of the reconnaissance survey, a review of the USFWS species list, a 5 mile radius search of the CNDDB, and a nine-quad search of CNPS database records. The CNDDB query for listed species within five miles of the project area is included in Appendix D.

The habitat and ecological requirements of each special-status plant species were evaluated and compared to the known habitat types in, or in the immediate vicinity, of the study area to assess the potential for occurrence.

2.5.2 Special-Status Animals
Special-status animal species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) identified as state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as Species of Special Concern or California Fully Protected Species.

A list of regionally occurring special-status wildlife species was compiled based on a review of pertinent literature and consultations with the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (iPAC) database and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) database records, and a query of the California Wildlife Habitats Relationship (CWHR) system.

The habitat and ecological requirements of each special-status species were evaluated and compared to the known habitat types in, or in the immediate vicinity, of the study area to assess the potential for suitable habitat or occurrence.

2.5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities
Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified as (1) "threatened" or "very threatened" by CDFW and listed on CNDDB; and/or (2) natural communities evaluated using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology with ranks of S1-S3 or sensitive.

2.5.4 Critical Habitat
The ESA defines critical habitat to include specific and formally designated geographic areas that are occupied and unoccupied by the species at the time of listing. To be designated as critical habitat, occupied areas must contain physical or biological features that are essential to the species’ conservation and may require special management. Unoccupied areas must be “essential for the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat is listed on the iPAC database and mapped on the CNDDB database.

Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 7

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the federal and state regulation of special-status species, waters of the United States, and other sensitive biological resources.

3.1 Federal Regulations

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits acts that result in the “take” of threatened or endangered species. As defined by the federal ESA, “endangered” refers to any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its current range. The term “threatened” is applied to any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its current range. “Take” is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Sections 7 and 10 of the federal ESA provide methods for permitting otherwise lawful actions that may result in “incidental take” of a federally listed species. Incidental take refers to take of a listed species that is incidental to, but not the primary purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Incidental take is permitted under Section 7 for projects on federal land or involving a federal action; Section 10 provides a process for non-federal actions. The act is administered by the USFWS for terrestrial species.

3.1.2 Clean Water Act
The objective of the Clean Water Act (1977, as amended) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands, is regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1376) under a permitting process. Applicants for Section 404 permits are also required to obtain water quality certification or waiver through the local Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341).

Corps regulations implementing Section 404 define waters of the United States to include intrastate waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3). To comply with the Corps policy of no net loss of wetlands, discharge into wetlands must be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. For unavoidable impacts, compensatory mitigation is typically required to replace the loss of wetland functions in the watershed.

3.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703- 711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 8 allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Mitigation measures can be identified to avoid or minimize adverse effects on migratory birds.

3.2 State Regulatory Requirements

3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act lists species of plants and animals as threatened or endangered. Projects that may have adverse effects on state-listed species require formal consultation with CDFW. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities may be authorized under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Authorization from the CDFW is in the form of an Incidental Take Permit, and measures can be identified to minimize take. CDFW Species of Special Concern are considered under the California Endangered Species Act.

3.2.2 Birds of Prey
Under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders of Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

3.2.3 Migratory Birds
The California Fish and Game Code Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.

3.2.4 Fully Protected Species
California statutes also accord “fully protected” status to a number of specifically identified birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. These species cannot be “taken,” even with an incidental take permit (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3505, 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).

3.3 Local Regulatory Requirements – Local Tree Protection The study area occurs within the City of Redding. The proposed park expansion involves the removal of certain native to accommodate the construction of the park facility. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Redding tree ordinance would be applicable.

The City of Redding Municipal Code (Chapter 18.45-Tree Management) intent and objectives are to:
• Protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the community provided by native and nonnative trees;
• Promote a healthy and attractive urban landscape as the community grows; Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 9 • Recognize the importance of trees as a visual and physical buffer; • Preserve the City’s valuable natural features;
• Require the replacement of trees that are removed, where appropriate; • Establish a program for the planting of trees in new developments; and • Protect trees on undeveloped properties until such time as a development plan/building permit is approved.

To achieve these goals, the City of Redding may require that a tree removal permit be obtained prior to removal of trees on vacant/undeveloped lands. Section 18.45.030 states that “No tree, regardless of species, that exceeds six inches DBH [diameter at breast height] on any developed or undeveloped/vacant property in the city shall be destroyed, killed, or removed unless a tree removal permit is first obtained under the provisions of this chapter…”.

Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 10

4.0 BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

4.1 Pre-Survey Review
Special-status plant and animal species and sensitive habitats that have the potential to occur within the survey area were determined, in part, by reviewing agency databases, literature, and other relevant sources. The following information sources were reviewed to aid this determination:
• Redding, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle;
• Aerial photography of the survey area and vicinity;
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) official list of endangered and threatened species that may occur, or be affected by projects, as provided by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (Project Code 2025-0000902), included as Appendix E; • The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2024a) records for the Redding, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles, included as Appendix E;
• The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (California Native Plant Society 2015) records for the Redding, California USGS

7.5-minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles; • California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (California Department of Fish and Game 2023).
• GIS shapefiles of designated critical habitat from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal website;
• CDFW publications including State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2024b); State and Federally Listed and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW 2024c); and Special Animals List (CDFW 2024d); and • Pertinent biological literature including Bird Species of Special Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

4.2 Survey Methods
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was completed to determine the vegetation communities onsite and identify any habitat that may support special-status plants or wildlife within 200 feet of the survey area. The pedestrian survey was completed by two VESTRA biologists on October 8, 2024. A Trimble Geo XT Explorer 6000, Nikon P530 camera, and binoculars were used to aid in the survey. The survey was completed within the two parcels by walking intuitive transects spaced between fifteen and fifty feet apart, which was acceptable for achieving complete visual coverage of the site due the open, flat terrain. Access outside of the project area was limited to accessible public easements but visual coverage was adequate to determine the surrounding vegetation types.

Focused searches were conducted for species-specific habitat features on the property during the reconnaissance survey, including bat roost habitat (e.g. crevices in trees), monarch butterfly habitat Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 11 (milkweed plants), and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) habitat (elderberry shrubs) throughout the project area. The entire property was surveyed for elderberry (Sambucus sp.) shrubs and native milkweed (Asclepias sp.) plants during the pedestrian transects. Then, each oak tree on the property was assessed for the presence of bat roost features, such as crevices, entry/exit holes, and missing or broken limbs.

All observed species were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible outside of flowering season. Species present were used to define vegetation communities to the Alliance level according to the Manual of California Vegetation.

4.3 Survey Results
A detailed species list of all botanical and wildlife species encountered during the reconnaissance survey is included below. No special-status species were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Site conditions during the survey were hotter than average for a fall day. Weather was clear and sunny with no precipitation. Recent hot conditions resulted in extremely dry conditions onsite.

The ambient temperature was 88 degrees Fahrenheit (F) during the survey.

The following wildlife species were observed within the survey area:
• American robin (Turdus migratorius)
• Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
• Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
• Deer scat (Odocoileus sp.)
The following plant species were observed within the survey area:
• Blue oak (Quercus douglassii)
• Manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.)
• Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)
• Wild oats (Avena fatua)
• Rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima)
• Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)
• Gray pine (Pinus sabiniana)
• Dwarf woolyheads (Psilocarphus brevissimus)
• Chaparral honeysuckle (Lonicera interrupta)
• Live oak (Quercus wislizeni)
• Centaurea sp.
• Bromus sp.
• Aster sp.

The health and location of all oak trees greater than five inches diameter at breast height was assessed by Wildland Resource Managers in October 2022. The number of trees onsite has since been reduced. An Existing Site and Tree Map created by Horrocks is included as Appendix A.

Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 12

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in the 2024 CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to biological resources if they would do any of the following:
• 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 CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• 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;
• 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;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.

5.1 Special-Status Species
The regionally occurring special-status species identified during the desktop review were assessed based on the potential for their habitat to occur within the project area. The determination of whether the species is likely to occur within the project area is summarized in Table 1.

Species with habitat requirements that are not present onsite were determined to be unlikely to occur and are not discussed further. Based on this assessment, four species may occur within the project location. The potential project impacts to these species are discussed below. Of the species assessed, the following have the potential to occur within the project area:
• Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
• Redding Checkerbloom (Sidalcea celata)
• Dubious Pea (Lathyrus sulphureus var. argillaceus)
• Henderson’s Bent Grass (Agrostis hendersonii)
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 13 Table 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Conservation
Status (state/
federal)
Habitat
Description
Potential to Occur
in Project Area?
Project Impact
Potential
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
State
Endangered/
Federally
Delisted/ Bald
and Golden
Eagle
Protection Act
of 1940
Nests in mature trees or snags
in remote, mixed stands near
open bodies of water. Forages
primarily for fish. May migrate
or remain year-round resident.

No; no suitable
nesting or foraging
habitat. Nearest
known CNDDB
occurrence is 3.5
miles southeast at a
location near the
Sacramento River.

No impact.

Northern
spotted owl
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
State
threatened/
Federal
Threatened
Requires large, old-growth
trees or snags in remote, mixed
stands
No; site is over 7
miles from known
range or habitat.

No impact.

Amphibians
Foothill
yellow-legged
frog - north
coast DPS
Rana boylii
pop. 1
CDFW Species
of Special
Concern
Breed in streams with
gravelly/ cobbly substrates
with adequate sun exposure,
tadpoles develop in streams
or pools that form as water
recedes.

No; no suitable
aquatic habitat.

Nearest known
occurrence on
CNDDB is 2 miles
south near the
Sacramento River.

No impact.

Western
spadefoot
Spea
hammondii
CDFW Species
of Special
Concern/
Federally
Proposed
Threatened
Breed in vernal pools, ponds
within grasslands and valley
foothill woodlands. Spend
significant time underground
in burrows up to 1 meter
deep, usually in grasslands.

No; site unlikely to
support burrows due
to poorly developed
shallow soils and
frequent vehicle
disturbance. Nearest
known occurrences
on CNDDB are 10
miles southeast.

No impact
Reptiles
Northwestern
pond turtle
Actinemys
marmorata
CDFW Species
of Special
Concern/Fede
ral Proposed
Threatened
Perennial streams and ponds;
nest in adjacent upland
grasslands, riparian corridors.

No; no suitable
aquatic habitat onsite.

Nearest known
occurrence on
CNDDB is 2.3 miles
east.

No impact.

Fish
Steelhead -
Central Valley
DPS
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 11
CDFW Species
of Special
Concern/
Federal
Threatened
Anadromous life history.

Occurs in drainages within
the Sacramento and San
Joaquin watersheds including
the Sacramento River.

No; no suitable
aquatic habitat, no
riparian habitat occurs
onsite.

No impact.

Chinook
salmon -
Central Valley
spring-run
ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
pop. 11
State
Threatened/
Federal
Threatened
Chinook
salmon -
Sacramento
River winterrun ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
pop. 7
State
Endangered/
Federal
Endangered
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 14 Table 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Conservation
Status (state/
federal)
Habitat
Description
Potential to Occur
in Project Area?
Project Impact
Potential
Green
sturgeon -
southern DPS
Acipenser
medirostris pop.
1 CDFW Species
of Special
Concern/
Federal
Threatened
Invertebrates
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
Federal
Threatened
Closely associated with
elderberry shrubs (Sambucus
sp.)
No; no elderberry
shrubs found onsite
or on adjacent
residential properties.

No impact.

Vernal pool
tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus
packardi
Federal
Endangered
Northern hardpan vernal
pools
No; wetland features
have inadequate
depth, hydrology to
support life cycle
(Vollmar 2023).

Nearest known
CNDDB occurrence
is 5 miles southeast.

Final Critical Habitat
exists 9.5 miles
southeast.

No impact.

Vernal Pool
Fairy Shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
Federal
Threatened
Northern hardpan vernal
pools
No; wetland features
have inadequate
depth, hydrology to
support life cycle (The
Natomas Basin
Conservancy 2024).

Nearest known
occurrence on
CNDDB is 6.5 miles
southeast. Final
Critical Habitat exists

9.5 miles southeast.

No impact.

Monarch
butterfly
Danaus
plexippus
Candidate for
Federal Listing
Riparian and prairie, areas
containing milkweeds
No; no habitat found
onsite during
reconnaissance survey.

No impact
Mammals
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
CDFW Species
of Special
Concern
Roosts in caves, bridges, or
mines. Forage for terrestrial
insects in riparian woodland,
grassland, and forest habitats.

Potential to forage
onsite and in nearby
woodland, no roost
habitat onsite. Not
detected onsite during
2024 acoustic bat
surveys.

Less than
significant
impact with
implementation
of measures
listed in Section

6.0. Plants
Maverick
clover
Trifolium
piorkowskii CNPS 1B.2
Annual herb occurring in
vernal pools, along stream
banks, volcanic flats, open
rocky ground, 300-800 meters
elevation; flowers Apr to
May.

No; site is outside
known geographic
and elevation range.

Nearest known
occurrence is 2.5 miles
south.

No impact.

Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 15 Table 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Conservation
Status (state/
federal)
Habitat
Description
Potential to Occur
in Project Area?
Project Impact
Potential
Red Bluff
dwarf rush
Juncus
leiospermus var.
leiospermus
CNPS 1B.1
Annual grass-like herb
occurring in vernal pool
margins within freshwater
wetland, valley grassland,
riparian habitats between
280-500 meters elevation;
flowers April to June.

Requires high terrace, thin,
reddish soils on Red Bluff
Formation (Vollmar et. al
2023).

No; site is outside
known range and
below known
elevation range.

No impact.

Redding
checkerbloom Sidalcea celata CNPS 3
A perennial herb occurring in
cismontane woodland or
open oak woodland between
elevations of 150-370 meters;
flowers May through June.

Potential to occur;
Habitat is present
onsite. A known
observation on
Calflora from 2023
approximately 0.75
miles south of site.

Less than
significant
impact with
implementation
of measures
listed in Section

6.0. Dubious pea
Lathyrus
sulphureus var.
argillaceus
CNPS 3
A perennial herb occurring in
foothill woodland to fir
forest, openings in canopy
between elevations of 150-
930 meters; flowers AprilMay.

No; outside known
range. Nearest known
observation on
CNDDB is 2 miles
south.

Less than
significant
impact with
implementation
of measures
listed in Section

6.0. Henderson's
bent grass
Agrostis
hendersonii CNPS 3.2
Annual grass-like herb
occurring in vernal pools
within freshwater wetland,
valley grassland, and other
riparian habitats at elevations
less than 300 meters; flowers
May to July.

No; site is outside
known range. Nearest
known observation on
Calflora is 3.5 miles
northeast. Nearest
known observation on
CNDDB is 3.6 miles
east.

Less than
significant
impact with
implementation
of measures
listed in Section

6.0. Koch's cord
moss
Entosthodon
kochii CNPS 1B.3
A moss occurring within cismontane woodlands on newly
exposed riverbank soil at
elevations between 180-1000
meters.

No; site is outside
known range and does
not contain suitable
streamside habitat.

No impact
Legenere Legenere limosa CNPS 1B.1
Annual herb occurring in wet
areas, vernal pools, and
ponds within freshwater
wetland, valley grassland, and
other riparian habitats at
elevations less than 950
meters. Typically occurs in
playa pools on Red Bluff
Formation. Flowers May to
June.

No; site is outside
known range. No impact.

Sanford's
arrowhead
Sagittaria
sanfordii CNPS 1B.2
A perennial rhizomatous herb
occurring freshwater marsh,
ponds, and ditches at
elevations greater than 300
meters; flowers May through
October.

No; site is outside
known range and does
not contain suitable
ponded habitat.

No impact.

Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 16 Table 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Conservation
Status (state/
federal)
Habitat
Description
Potential to Occur
in Project Area?
Project Impact
Potential
Oval-leaved
viburnum
Viburnum
ellipticum CNPS 2B.3
A shrub occurring in
chaparral and yellow-pine
forest, generally on north
facing slopes between
elevations of 300 to 1400
meters; flowers June through
August.

No; site is outside
known range and
below known
elevation range.

No impact.

Siskiyou iris Iris bracteata CNPS 3.3
A perennial rhizomatous herb
occurring in partly shady
places, generally within
yellow-pine forest between
elevations of 350 to 1100
meters; flowers in May.

No; site is outside
known range, below
known elevation
range, and no suitable
habitat onsite.

No impact.

Sulphur Creek
brodiaea
Brodiaea
matsonii CNPS 1B.1
A perennial bulbiferous herb
occurring in intermittent
streambeds within foothill
woodlands between
elevations of 190 to 235
meters; flowers in June.

No; site does not
contain suitable
intermittent stream
habitat. Endemic to
Sulphur Creek and
tributaries greater than
700 feet from site.

No impact.

Slender Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia tenuis
State
Endangered/
Federal
Threatened/
CNPS 1B.1
Annual grass-like herb
occurring in vernal pools
within foothill woodland,
freshwater wetland, valley
grassland, and other riparian
habitats between 200-1100
meters elevation. Typically
occurs in playa pools on Red
Bluff Formation. Flowers
May to October.

No; Outside known
range. Based on the
site visit, wetland
features in the survey
area have an
inadequately
developed soil profile
that lacks deep clay
cracks required to trap
seeds to support
species (Jepson 2015).

Final Critical Habitat
exists 6.5 miles
southeast.

No impact.

Silky
cryptantha
Cryptantha
crinita CNPS 1B.2
Annual herb occurring in
rocky volcanic flats, gravelly
streambanks, gravel bars
within yellow pine forest,
foothill woodland, and valley
grassland habitats at
elevations between 90-1120
meters; flowers March to
June.

No; site lacks volcanic
soils and gravelly
streambanks.

No impact.

Pink
creamsacs
Castilleja
rubicundula
var.
rubicundula
CNPS 1B.2
Annual herb occurring in
serpentinite within chaparral
(openings), cismontane
woodland, valley, and foothill
grassland between elevations
of 20-910 meters; flowers
April-June
No; no serpentinite No impact.

Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 17 Table 1

POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Conservation
Status (state/
federal)
Habitat
Description
Potential to Occur
in Project Area?
Project Impact
Potential
*Nine awned
pappus grass
Enneapogon
desvauxii CNPS 2B.2
A perennial grass-like herb
occurring on rocky slopes,
crevices, calcareous soils
within pinyon-juniper
woodland. Within California,
this species is only known to
occur in San Bernardino
County.

No; Outside known
range and the nearest
known occurrence is
over 500 miles
southeast. No suitable
habitat exists onsite.

This species was
included in this
assessment as it was
allegedly observed by
Wildland Resource
Managers within the
survey area in 2022.

No impact.
*Hairy
erioneuron
Erioneuron
pilosum CNPS 2B.3
A perennial grass-like herb
occurring on rocky slopes
and ridges within pinyonjuniper woodland. Within
California, this species is only
known to occur in Inyo and
San Bernardino County.

No; Outside known
range; nearest known
occurrence >300
miles southeast. No
suitable habitat onsite.

Species included in
the assessment as
allegedly observed by
Wildland Resource
Managers within the
survey area in 2022.

No impact.

Sensitive Habitats
Great Valley
Valley Oak
Riparian
Forest
N/A S3 (State
Vulnerable)
Quercus lobata is dominant to
co-dominant in tree canopy
with Acer negundo, Alnus
rhombifolia, Fraxinus latifolia,
Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus
wislizeni, Salix gooddingii, Salix
laevigata and/or Salix lasiolepis.

Understory characterized by
riparian species: Aristolochia
californica, Carex barbarae, Rhus
trilobata, Rosa californica, Rubus
armeniacus, Rubus ursinus and
Vitis californica.

No; site lacks streams,
riparian vegetation,
and required
membership species.

No impact.

Great Valley
Cottonwood
Riparian
Forest
N/A S2 (State
Imperiled)
Populus fremontii is dominant
or co-dominant in tree
canopy with Acer negundo,
Baccharis sergiloides, Fraxinus
latifolia, Fraxinus velutina,
Juglans hindsii, Juglans hindsii,
Platanus racemosa, Quercus
agrifolia, Salix exigua, Salix
gooddingii, Salix laevigata, Salix
lasiolepis, Salix lucida ssp.
lasiandra and Salix lutea.

No; site lacks streams,
riparian vegetation,
and required
membership species.

No impact.

Key: 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere; 3: Plants about which more information is needed. *Species was included in this BRA assessment because of claims that species is present onsite in previous biological reports.

Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 18 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend’s big-eared bat is designated as a SSC. This bat is distinguished by its bilateral nose bumps and large ears (WBWG 2022). This bat requires large cavities for roosting; these may include abandoned buildings and mines, caves, and basal cavities of trees. During the summer, males and females occupy separate roosting sites; males are typically solitary, while females form maternity colonies, where they raise their pups. Maternity colonies typically form between March and June, with a single pup born each year (WBWG 2022). A maternity colony may range in size from twelve to 200 bats in the western populations. Like other bats, this species hibernates in the winter when temperatures fall below roughly fifty degrees in the daytime.

No maternity roost or winter hibernacula habitat for this species occurs onsite because there are no caves or buildings onsite. There is potential for a Townsend’s big-eared bat to forage in vegetated areas onsite because it abuts to undisturbed oak woodland to the northwest of the site, which likely provides foraging habitat for the species.

Redding Checkerbloom
Sidalcea celata
This species is ranked as “3” by the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR), meaning that the necessary information to assign the species a “1” or “2” rank is lacking. According to Calflora, a nearby occurrence of ten individuals of this species was discovered May 11, 2023, approximately

0.75 miles south of site in similar habitat, although in apparently less disturbed conditions.

The Redding checkerbloom is a perennial herb occurring in cismontane woodland or open oak woodland between elevations of 150-370 meters. Therefore, there is potential habitat within the project area underneath the blue oak canopy where undisturbed vegetation remains.

Dubious Pea
Lathyrus sulphureus var. argillaceus
Dubious pea is a perennial vine-like herb that is occurs in cismontane woodlands, lower montane coniferous forests, upper montane coniferous forests between 500 feet and 3000 meters elevation in Calaveras, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Shasta and Tehama counties. This species is ranked as “3” by the CRPR, and therefore should therefore be considered during CEQA processes.

The nearest and most recent records of this species occur in Redding in Shasta County in 1911 and near Rosewood in Tehama County in 1899. Therefore, records of previous occurrences are not reliable for determining the current distribution of this subspecies. There is potential habitat within the project area underneath the blue oak canopy where undisturbed vegetation remains.

Henderson’s Bent Grass
Agrostis hendersonii
Henderson’s bent grass is an annual grass native to northern California and Oregon. This species usually inhabits vernal pool and swale habitats, but it can also be found in moist areas in annual grasslands. It is associated with valley grasslands and ephemeral wetlands, and sometimes with riparian understory communities. This species is ranked as “3.2” by the CRPR. The wetland feature located onsite could provide habitat for Henderson’s bent grass.

Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 19

5.2 Potential Impacts to Listed Wildlife Species
One special status wildlife species, Townsend’s big-eared bat, has the potential to occur in the project area. Although no maternity roost habitat exists, there is potential foraging habitat onsite and in the adjacent oak woodland to the northwest of the site. The development of the project site would cause a less than significant impact to foraging Townsend’s big-eared bats because the foraging habitat on the adjacent properties will continue to support abundant prey items for this species.

The proposed development would lead to residential development onsite. In general, such development causes a long-term increase in noise and light levels. Light sources may occur at crepuscular hours when bats are typically foraging. While lighting will not interfere with echolocation for prey capture, it has the potential to impact prey behavior because prey items such as moths and nocturnal insects are drawn to light. There is pre-existing light and noise disturbance from the residential areas surrounding the project site. However, light pollution to the north could cause a localized light pollution to their potential offsite foraging habitat. Measures listed in Section

6.4 would reduce light pollution so that impacts to bat foraging habitat is less than significant.

5.3 Potential Impacts to Listed Plant Species
Blue oak woodland can provide habitat for two of the potentially occurring plant species: dubious pea and Redding checkerbloom. Therefore, there is potential habitat within the project area underneath the blue oak canopy where undisturbed vegetation remains. Although the survey was conducted outside of the flowering period, no dubious pea, or closely related pea (Lathyrus sp.), was observed during the survey in the vegetative state.

The Redding checkerbloom was not observed during the reconnaissance survey which was conducted outside of its flowering season. There is potential habitat onsite for this species in the areas within the blue oak woodland onsite. Although the reconnaissance survey was conducted outside of the flowering period, the site was visually scanned for these perennial species in the vegetative state, and neither species was observed. Protocol-level surveys would be required to definitively determine whether these species are present within the potential habitat areas.

The wetland feature onsite could provide habitat for one potentially occurring rare plant species, Henderson’s bent grass. This species is an annual grass which is difficult to identify after its growing and flowering period have long passed.

The grading, paving, and ultimate development of the project site could lead to direct removal of Redding checkerbloom, dubious pea, or Henderson’s bent grass plants. The completion of surveys and either avoidance or mitigation would reduce project impacts to these species. Project impacts to rare plants would be minimized or avoided by implementation of measures listed in Section 6.1 such that impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

5.4 Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds
The project will result in the removal of native blue oak and gray pine trees. Tree removal and construction activities during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31), such as tree removal Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 20 and noise-generating construction activities that disturb a nesting bird or destroy active nests, could result in impacts to nesting birds. Implementation of the conservation measures described in Section 6.3 would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds such that there are no impacts to nesting birds with mitigation.

5.5 Potential Impacts to Rare Natural Communities and Sensitive Habitats In addition to inventorying reported occurrences of special-status species, the CNDDB serves to inventory the locations of rare natural communities. Communities respond to environmental changes and can be thought of as an indicator of the overall health of an ecosystem and its component species. Rare natural communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. They may or may not contain rare, threatened, or endangered species. The CNDDB ranks natural communities according to their rarity and endangerment in California.

According to CNDDB, two sensitive habitats occur within five miles of the survey area: Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest and Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest. The reconnaissance survey found that no Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest and Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest occur onsite. Therefore, no impacts to these rare or sensitive natural communities would occur.

The Blue Oak Woodland Alliance is rated as S4, which is not a Sensitive Natural Community.

None of the Associations listed as “sensitive” are present onsite.

5.6 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat
There is no U.S. Fish and Wildlife designated Critical Habitat within the survey area. No impact.

5.7 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites A project would have a significant impact if it would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No known established wildlife corridors or nursery sites occur within or in the vicinity of the survey area. The development of several residences on an undisturbed property will alter the accessibility of the site to common wildlife species, such as black tailed deer.

However, the project site is surrounded by fenced residential development.

In general, riparian corridors provide corridors for wildlife dispersal and migration. The project site is 750 feet away from the nearest riparian corridor. Therefore, the project would not inhibit wildlife movement along the riparian corridor.

Undisturbed oak woodland exists adjacent to the northwest corner of the property. Impacts to wildlife movement, particularly nocturnal wildlife, can result from the increase in light and noise from the long-term use of the site for residential purposes. Wildlife in the area is likely tolerant of residential noises, because of the prevalence of residences in the immediate area. Light pollution to the surrounding woodland would be avoided by implementing measures in Section 6.4.

Therefore, impacts to nocturnal wildlife movement would be less than significant.

Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 21 Bat Maternity Roosts
No evidence of bat maternity roost habitat was found onsite. In general, bats may utilize crevices inside of trees for maternity roosts and/or winter hibernacula. The Zinco Subdivision Project activities will include removal of trees from within the survey area. Ecological requirements for bat roosts, including maternity roosts, require an appropriate thermal gradient, shelter from predators, and proximity to foraging sites. Trees can provide this habitat inside of large crevices caused by natural limb damage or created by other wildlife. The trees onsite were inspected for the presence of cavities and entrance/exit holes. None of the trees onsite exhibit roost habitat features.

According to the CNDDB, the survey area is characterized as “Low” quality habitat for the Townsend's big-eared bat. There are no buildings or structures onsite that would provide roost habitat for the Townsend's big-eared bat. Therefore, no impacts to their maternity roosts would occur.

5.8 Potential Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the State
The habitat within the depressions onsite resembles vernal pool habitat based on hydrology indicators and a hydrophytic plant species, although the features lack adequate depth and hydrology to support many of the species typically associated with healthy vernal pools (Table 1).

The current site conditions are likely remnant from a historic wetland which is now degraded from decades of disturbance. A protocol-level wetland delineation would be required to determine the current presence and extent of the wetlands onsite.

Impacts to wetlands will be avoided or mitigated for in accordance with conservation measures outlined in Section 6.2. With the implementation of these measures, impacts to wetlands will be less than significant.

5.9 Compliance with Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plans The project area does not occur within the boundaries of any existing Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs).

5.10 Compliance with Local Policies and Ordinances
The project proponent will ensure that the proposed project would comply with the respective land management policies that apply the City of Redding.

The primary purposes of the City of Redding’s Tree Ordinance (Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code) are: 1) the preservation of existing native and nonnative trees where feasible; 2) the replacement or transplanting of trees removed where appropriate; and 3) the planting of new trees in location, number and kind compatible with local conditions.

Trees within the study area maybe subject to the City of Redding tree ordinance. The project area encompasses several mature native blue oak trees. These may be considered “candidate trees” that would be subject to further evaluation to determine if any of these trees are appropriate for protection per Section 18.45.070 of the City of Redding Municipal Code.

Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 22 The removal of blue oak trees from the project area would result in the loss of foraging habitat for certain oak woodland-dependent species, such as Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) and Western grey squirrel (Sciurus griseus) but would not result in take of any special-status species with implementation of measures listed in Section 6.0.

Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 23

6.0 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES
The following conservation measures, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and project features will be incorporated into the project in order to avoid and minimize the potential environmental impacts from construction and long-term operation of the proposed facility:

6.1 Botanical Resources
• A Qualified Biologist shall conduct botanical surveys during the appropriate blooming period and conditions for all special-status plants that have the potential to occur prior to the start of construction. Surveys shall be conducted following CDFW’s 2018 Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. If any special-status plant species are observed, the Project shall fully avoid the individuals by implementing a 15-foot buffer around the plant(s). If the area cannot be avoided, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance. Mitigation plans can propose to do one or more of the following: (A) relocate the plants from the site, (B) restore habitat onsite (following construction) or at an appropriate offsite location, (C) protect of an offsite population by purchasing credits at a mitigation bank.

6.2 Wetlands/Waters of the State
• Prior to discharge of fill into a wetland, all required permits and authorizations shall be obtained from the Corps and/or RWQCB. All terms and conditions contained with the permits and authorizations shall be met.
• Permanent loss of wetlands that are waters of the State shall be offset by purchasing mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank at the ratio required by the Army Corps or RWQCB.

6.3 Nesting Birds
• The general nesting season for songbirds and raptors in the project area is February 1- August 31. If possible, vegetation removal will occur outside the nesting season to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
• If vegetation removal will occur during the nesting season for birds then a qualified biologist must conduct preconstruction surveys within seven days before vegetation removal activities begin. If nesting birds are found, then CDFW shall be notified and consulted. An appropriate buffer recommended by the qualified biologist shall be placed around the nest until the young have fledged. The buffer will depend on species and conservation status as well as site conditions and will consider noise and line-of-sight disturbances. Vegetation removal/construction may not resume within the buffer until the young have left the nest as confirmed by the qualified biologist.

Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 24

6.4 Nocturnal Wildlife
• Illumination from the facility will be directed downward to contain light such that the construction activities or ongoing operations of the facility do not cause light pollution to the surrounding area, particularly to the undisturbed oak woodland located northwest of the site.
• Construction will be limited to daytime hours to avoid interference with bat echolocation or foraging behavior.

Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 25

7.0 REFERENCES
California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online edition, v8- 02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2024. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
CDFW. 2021. Biogeographic Data Branch, 2021. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Version 10.1.29. Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2024. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/cwhr/index.shtml
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024a. RareFind Version 5.2.14. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Accessed October 2024.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare plants of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 2024.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024c. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 2024..

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2024d. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 2024.

Calflora. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation, with data contributed by public and private institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of California Herbaria. [web application]. 2019. Berkeley, California. https://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed October 2024)
California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online edition, v8- 02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ (Accessed October 2024)
Cheatham, N. H., and J. R. Haller. 1975. An annotated list of California habitat types. Univ. of California Natural Land and Water Reserve System, unpubl. manuscript DeBecker, S. and A. Sweet. 1988. Crosswalk between WHR and California vegetation classifications. Pages 21-39 in: K.E. Mayer, and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, California.

Gosselink, J. G., and R. E. Turner. 1978. The role of hydrology in fresh water wetland systems.

Pages 63-67 In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater wetlands, ecological processes and management potential. Academic Press, New York.

Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning P:\Projects\2024\72451 Zinco Subdivision\BRA\_Zinco Jordan Lane Subdivision BRA_101124.docx 26 Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024. Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics. Accessed online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/
Johnston, Dave. Tatarian, Greg. Pierson, Elizabeth. Trapp, Gene. 2004. California Bat Mitigation Techniques, Solutions, and Effectiveness. Published December 29, 2004. HT Harvey & Associates.

Kerns, Steven J. 2024. Updated Zinco Property Biological Review. Wildland Resource Managers P.O. Box 102, Round Mountain, California 96084.

The Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2024. About the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 460, Sacramento, CA 95833. Available at Vernal pool fairy shrimp - The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Accessed December 2020.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 50 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Framework for assessing impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sacramento, California. 28 pp.

Vollmar, J., K. Chinn, E. Smith, H. Hwang, and A. Bokish. 2023. Conservation of California’s Great Valley Pool Landscapes. Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Inc. Berkeley, CA.

Western Regional Climate center, 2006. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries: Redding Fire Station 4. Web. Accessed October 2024. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7300 Zika, Peter F. 2015, Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora, Revision 3, /eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=60374, accessed on June 22, 2020.

Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Appendix A
Proposed Site Layout
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w w pp pp pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w w pp pp pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W SSSS
8'' W
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
Y D
H
D
Y H
S
NN NN
NN D
H Y 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS S 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD SD S88°49'55"W 132.58'
N01°12'26"W 50.00' N01°12'26"W 65.00' L=35.10' R=1028.00' Δ= 001°57'23"
N00°43'07"E 128.85'
S88°49'55"W 71.77' S88°49'55"W 65.00' S88°49'55"W 65.04' S88°49'55"W 68.04' S88°49'55"W 65.03' S88°49'55"W 94.26' N88°48'44"E 65.00' N88°48'44"E 65.04' N88°48'44"E 23.31' L=16.30' R=20.00' Δ= 046°42'29"L=36.45' R=50.00'
Δ= 041°45'59" L=35.00' R=50.00' Δ= 040°06'31" L=35.00' R=50.00' Δ= 040°06'25" L=16.30' R=20.00' Δ= 046°42'29" N88°48'44"E 25.18' N88°48'44"E 65.00' N88°47'51"E 65.04' N88°48'44"E 50.92' N01°12'26"W 85.57'
S00°43'07"W 128.85'
N88°47'34"E 49.61' N88°47'34"E 62.00' N88°47'34"E 65.02' N88°47'34"E 67.04' N88°47'34"E 51.71' N00°39'29"E 135.66'
S00°43'07"W 128.87' S26°41'52"W 30.29' S89°47'17"W 102.26' N15°38'15"W 121.39'
N00°48'50"W 128.30' L=32.09' R=20.00' Δ= 091°56'13" L=30.76' R=20.00' Δ= 088°08'05" J O R D A N L A N E

D E O D A R W A Y
PARCEL 6
8,371 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 7
8,374 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 8
8,241 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 9
7,229 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 11
14,326 SQ. FT. PARCEL 13 8,190 SQ. FT. PARCEL 14 8,374 SQ. FT. PARCEL 15 8,205 SQ. FT. PARCEL 16 8,787 SQ. FT. L=52.02' R=50.00' Δ= 059°36'37" L=47.85' R=50.00' Δ= 054°50'05" L=31.42' R=20.00' Δ= 090°00'00" L=31.42' R=20.00' Δ= 090°01'10" N00°43'07"E 56.03'
N00°43'07"E 128.82'
S00°43'07"W 96.94' S06°07'47"E 10.00' N48°42'18"E 10.00' S51°04'51"E 10.00' N00°43'07"E 97.15' N08°31'46"E 10.00'
N00°43'07"E 128.33' 17.0' R.O.W. 33' R.O.W. 33' R.O.W.
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744
743
742
741
740
749
748
747
746
1 2
3 4 56' R.O.W.

R=50' 56' R.O.W. N88°49'55"E 325.38'
N88°49'55"E 292.36'
S00°39'29"W 294.15' S00°10'26"W 16.50' S88°47'34"W 273.50' S88°47'35"W 325.74' N00°46'44"E 16.51'
(N) R O A D 'A'
(N) R O A D 'B' EX. 16.5' PATENT EASEMENT (TO BE ABANDONED) EX. 16.5' PATENT EASEMENT (TO BE ABANDONED) PARCEL 1 9,497 SQ. FT.

N00°46'44"E 70.04' N00°46'44"E 65.04' PARCEL 2 8,746 SQ. FT.

N00°46'44"E 65.04'
N00°46'44"E 313.96'
N00°46'44"E 113.34'
N00°44'57"E 25.66' N00°44'57"E 113.25' S88°49'55"W 56.03' PARCEL 3 8,633 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 5
9,156 SQ. FT.

N88°48'44"E 51.15'
PARCEL 10
15,549 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 12
8,246 SQ. FT.

N88°47'34"E 89.54' PROPOSED 15' P.S.E. SANITARY SEWER STUB FOR PARCEL 11 SANITARY SEWER STUB FOR PARCEL 10 N00°39'29"E 158.50' 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK L=32.28' R=50.00' Δ= 036°59'27"
S00°44'57"W 108.21' PROPOSED 15' P.S.E PROPOSED 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT S88°47'34"W 118.11' N01°12'26"W 0.50' 5' P.S.E. 5' P.S.E. 5' P.S.E. 15' SETBACK 5' P.S.E. 5' P.S.E. 0.5' R.O.W. DEDICATION 0.5' R.O.W. DEDICATION EXISTING ROAD TO BE SLURRY SEALED AND STRIPED EXISTING ROAD TO BE SLURRY SEALED AND STRIPED S01°12'26"E 4.26' PARCEL 4 15,016 SQ. FT. N88°47'34"E 135.68' N88°47'34"E 133.43' N88°47'34"E 132.65' L=31.42' R=20.00' Δ= 090°00'00" 15' SD EASEMENT & 12' ACCESS ROAD 15' SD EASEMENT & 12' ACCESS ROAD S00°43'07"W 91.24' 65' 56' (LOCAL STREET) R.O.W.

R.O.W.

R.O.W. 2.5'5' 16' 16' 2.5' 5' 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PRKNG 2% A 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PRKNG 2%
B B A TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED ROAD 'A' SCALE: 1"=10' A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00 B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
P.S.E.

P.S.E. 5' 4.5' 4.5' 5' 56' (LOCAL STREET) R.O.W.

R.O.W.

R.O.W. 2.5'5' 16' 16' 2.5' 5' 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PRKNG 2% A 10' TRAVEL LANE 8' PRKNG 2%
B B A TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED ROAD 'B' SCALE: 1"=10' A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00 B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00
P.S.E.

P.S.E. 5' 4.5' 4.5' 5' 33'
R.O.W.

R.O.W. 2.5'6.25' 16' 16' 2.5'
C 2% 2% C TYPICAL SECTION - EXISTING 'JORDAN LANE' SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50' C 2.5' ROLL CURB & GUTTER - D38 16.5' 6.25' SO. LINE OF N.1/2 OF S.W.1/4 OF S.W.1/4, SECTION 14 33' R.O.W. 9.5' 2.5' 18'
C 2% TYPICAL SECTION - EXISTING 'DEODAR WAY' SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50' C 2.5' ROLL CURB & GUTTER - D38 3' OLD PL EXISTING CENTERLINE 33' R.O.W. 2.5' 18'
B 2% TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED 'DEODAR WAY' SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50' 3' OLD PL EXISTING CENTERLINE 5' A
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00 5'
P.S.E.
3:1 33'
R.O.W. 2.5'6.25' 16' 16' 2.5'
B 2% 2% B TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED 'JORDAN LANE' SCALE: 1"=10'; AC: .17', AB: .50' 16.5' SO. LINE OF N.1/2 OF S.W.1/4 OF S.W.1/4, SECTION 14 5' A
A 5' SIDEWALK (4" PCC) - CORCS 131.00
B 6" CURB & GUTTER - CORCS 136.00PROPOSED 0.5' R.O.W. DEDICATION 5' R.O.W.

P.S.E.
3:1
H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 1.dwg - TSM - SH1 - 11/16/2023 12:27pm, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 1 2

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com 1 of
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

11.16.23 3
1 OWNER ZINCO HOLDING, LLC. 20083 SUNRISE DRIVE REDDING, CA 96003 ENGINEER HORROCKS PO BOX 1307 ANDERSON, CA 96007 PROJECT ADDRESS 3150, 3250 JORDAN LANE REDDING, CA 96003 WATER/SEWER CITY OF REDDING ELECTRICITY REU TELEPHONE AT&T EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE RESIDENTIAL APN 114-050-005 114-050-006 TOTAL AREA 4.42 ACRES ZONING APN: 114-050-005 EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5 APN: 114-050-006 EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5 GENERAL PLAN (114-050-005) - 3.5 TO 6 (114-050-006) - 2 TO 3.5

ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COVER SHEET
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ADJACENT PARCEL NO. INDEX
1 23
4 SNOW, MICHELLE (114 - 040 - 008) TONEY, JULIA (114 - 040 - 012) WARD, JERRY (114 - 050 - 040) SNAVELY, PAULA (114 - 040 - 016) LEGEND RECORD BOUNDARY ADJACENT PARCEL RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING 6" WATER LINE (VALVE, METER, & HYDRANT) EXISTING 6" SEWER LINE (MANHOLE) PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED SSMH EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC (POWER POLE) PROPOSED HMA EXISTING HMA 6" W R/W R/W 6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610 SITE

OASIS ROAD VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE
HWY 273
INTERSTATE - 5
LAKE BOULEVARD SANTA ROSA WAY DEODAR WAY JORDAN LANE KESWICK DAM BOULEVARD (114 - 040 - 017) & No. 82097 NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
H
O
R
R
O
C
K
S
E
N
G I N
E
E
R
S
0 30' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30' CONNECT PROPOSED 8" WATER TO EXISTING 6" STUB S - 2022 - 02416 6" SS PROPOSED SEWER LINE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED CB No. 3 BUILDING SETBACK LINE 5' PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT 0 0 0
1 I
r
; :
( :

I
0 0 0
0 --6"ss--
--eel--
0 0
------,©>--
-----E!l---
___
1 I/// ///1
0 0 0 0
0 0
/
" ,f\
_L ,,--
\
" "
I
•
u,
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 896
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding)

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w w pp pp pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
s
s
w
w w pp pp pp

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS
8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W SS SS
8'' W
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD
15'' SD 15'' SD 15'' SD
8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W
Y D
H
D
Y H
S
NN NN
NN D
Y H 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS S 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 8'' W 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 6'' SD 15'' SD
15'' SD
15'' SD SD J O R D A N L A N E
D E O D A R W A Y 33' R.O.W. 33' R.O.W.
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744
743
742
741
740
749
748
747
746
(N) R O A D 'A'
(N) R O A D 'B' OUT:740.85 8" RIM:747.89 EX. SS MANHOLE OUT:740.37 8" IN:740.37 8" IN:740.46 8" RIM:747.51 SS MANHOLE IN:739.69 8" RIM:741.21 EX. SS MANHOLE 165.17' of 8" PVC @ 0.40%
111.48' of 8" PVC @ 0.40% 16.5' R.O.W. (W)
(S)
751
750
749
748
747
744 OUT:742.37 8" IN:742.57 8" IN:742.57 8" RIM:749.14 SS MANHOLE EX. SSMH (C5-22) EX. SSMH (C5-61) (N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00 (N) SDMH CORCS 260.00 EX. FIRE HYDRANT EX. WATER METER 8" WATER LINE (N) 8" SS STUB (N) FIRE HYDRANT (N) 5' SIDEWALK CORCS 131.00 (TYP) (N) 6" VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER CORCS 136.00 (TYP) (N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00 (N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00 (N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00 EX. FIRE HYDRANT (N) FIRE HYDRANT (N) TIMBER BARRICADE C.O.R.C.S. 183.00 (N) FIRE HYDRANT 748

2.1%

2.0%

2.0%

2.3%

2.0%

2.0%

2.1%

2.0%

2.3%

2.1%

2.0% IMPERVIOUS AREA (ROADWAY)
26,157 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA (ROADWAY)
7,011 SF
(N) BIORETENTION CELL
BOTTOM: 1,344 SF
(N) BIORETENTION CELL BOTTOM: 562 SF

2.5%

2.0%

2.0%
(N) CATCH BASIN NO. 3 CORCS 230.00

33.4%

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% (N) AREA DRAIN W/ 8" OUTLET
(N) UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN CORCS 190.00 (N) AREA DRAIN
W/ 10" OUTLET
748
749
750
750
750
749
748 DMA #2 DMA #1 480.10' of 8" PVC @ 0.40%

33.3% 15' SD EASEMENT & 12' ACCESS ROAD 15' SD EASEMENT & 12' ACCESS ROAD 752
751
750
749
748
B
B
A
A ORIFICE INVERT TO BE AT OR ABOVE FLOWLINE OF UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN 65' C C H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 2 - ALT.dwg - TSM - SH2 - 12/27/2023 04:15pm, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 1 2

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com 2 of
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

11.16.23 3
2 ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITIES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610 DRAINAGE LEGEND IMPERVIOUS AREA DIRECTION OF FLOW DMA BOUNDARY No. 82097 NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
H
O
R
R
O
C
K
S
E
N
G I N
E
E
R
S
0 30' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30' GRADING ANALYSIS AREA OF DISTURBANCE: VOLUME: 4.42 ACRES 1,500 CU. YDS. (FILL) S - 2022 - 02416 DMA #1: WEST SIDE PROJECT CLIMATE STATION: REDDING AP SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: .06 IN/HR IMPERVIOUS AREA: 66,154 SQ. FT. APPLICABLE TREE CREDITS: 11,200 SQ. FT. DESIGN IMPERVIOUS AREA: 54,954 SQ. FT. DESIGN STORM DEPTH: .91 IN. TREATMENT MEASURE: DESIGN STORM BMP TYPE (1): BIORETENTION CELL (24" SOIL & 36" GRAVEL) BMP TYPE (2): STRIP, AMENDED (18" SOIL) BIORETENTION CELL AREA NEEDED: 1,792 SQ. FT. BIORETENTION CELL AREA PROVIDED: 1,080 SQ. FT. BIORETENTION CELL PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 60.27% STRIP, AMENDED AREA NEEDED: 9,935 SQ. FT. STRIP, AMENDED AREA PROVIDED: 4,000 SQ. FT. STRIP, AMENDED PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 40.26% TOTAL PERCENTAGE COMPLIANT LID AREA: 100.53% MS4 NOTE: IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS INCLUDE 4,000 SF OF IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT (INCLUDING HOUSE FOOTPRINT AND DRIVEWAYS) 6" PONDING: 743.50' 100 YR WATER ELEV: 744.35' 1' FREEBOARD (MIN) BOTTOM: 743.00' POND TOP: 746.00' 24" AMENDED SOIL 36" GRAVEL STORAGE 3:1 (MAX)
3:1 (MAX)
5' (MIN) VARIED HEIGHT RETAINING WALL (2' MAX) 12' SD ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION: "A-A" DMA #1 BIORETENTION CELL SCALE: NTS 6" PONDING: 746.50' 100 YR WATER ELEV: 747.30' 1' FREEBOARD (MIN) BOTTOM: 746.00' POND TOP: 749.00' 24" AMENDED SOIL 36" GRAVEL STORAGE 3:1 (MAX)
3:1 (MAX)
5' (MIN) VARIED HEIGHT RETAINING WALL (2' MAX) 12' SD ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION: "B-B" DMA #2 BIORETENTION CELL SCALE: NTS TYPICAL LOT: MS4 AREA ANALYSIS SCALE: NTS PRELIM FLOORPLAN: ~3,000 SF D/W CONC: ~1,000 SF EVERGREEN TREE (TYP) 18" STRIP, AMENDED
DMA #1: 400 SF/LOTDMA #2: 250 SF/LOT
PSE
ROW
TBW DMA #2: EAST SIDE PROJECT CLIMATE STATION: REDDING AP SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: .06 IN/HR IMPERVIOUS AREA: 31,991 SQ. FT. APPLICABLE TREE CREDITS: 6,480 SQ. FT. DESIGN IMPERVIOUS AREA: 25,511 SQ. FT. DESIGN STORM DEPTH: .91 IN. TREATMENT MEASURE: DESIGN STORM BMP TYPE (1): BIORETENTION CELL (24" SOIL & 36" GRAVEL) BMP TYPE (2): STRIP, AMENDED (18" SOIL) BIORETENTION CELL AREA NEEDED: 832 SQ. FT. BIORETENTION CELL AREA PROVIDED: 562 SQ. FT. BIORETENTION CELL PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 67.55% STRIP, AMENDED AREA NEEDED: 4,612 SQ. FT.

STRIP, AMENDED AREA PROVIDED: 1,500 SQ. FT.STRIP, AMENDED PERCENT COMPLIANT LID AREA: 32.52% TOTAL PERCENTAGE COMPLIANT LID AREA: 100.07% 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 2% (TYP) 10'-15' STRIP, AMENDED 5' P.S.E. 5' R.O.W. 5' SIDEWALK (TO STREET) TYP LOT (VARIES) CROSS SECTION: "C-C" DMA #1 & 2 STRIP, AMENDED SCALE: NTS 18" AMENDED SOIL 8' 10.5' / , / ; : f I I I I I I -
-
---
---___:... I
---
-
- ./1
'/~ "
'
:---..,_
-
-
" 0-- " ::::..... "'
"' \ "' \ I "' \
I
• •
)
(
(
(
/
: l,I
I I\ I
K
\
\. I
:

L1 T
___________________________________________________________________ I J
I
•
u,
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 897
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) s
s
w
w w pp pp pp J O R D A N L A N E
D E O D A R W A Y 33' R.O.W. 33' R.O.W.
751
750
749
748
747
746
745
744
743
742
741
740
749
748
747
746 16.5' R.O.W. EX. TBC 752.08 EX. TBC 751.74 EX. TBC 751.41 EX. TBC 751.10 EX. TBC 750.84 EX. TBC 750.58 EX. TBC 750.33 EX. TBC 750.01 EX. TBC 749.64 EX. TBC 749.27 EX. TBC 748.90 EX. TBC 748.53 EX. TBC 748.08EX. TBC 747.60 EX. TBC 746.61 EX. SSMH 747.97 EX. SSMH 746.28 APN: 114-050-005 EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 PROPOSED ZONING: RM-6 GENERAL PLAN: 3.5 - 6 APN: 114-050-006 EXISTING ZONING: RS-3 PROPOSED ZONING: RS-3.5 GENERAL PLAN: 2 - 3.5 EX. POWER POLE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROLLED CURB TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH VERTICAL CURB (ALONG ALL PROPERTY FRONTAGE ACCESS RIGHTS TO BE WAIVED ALONG JORDAN LANE 5051 52 5354 55 57 56 58 59 60 6162 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 78 76 78 79 81 82 84 85 86 878889 90 9192 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100101 102 104 105 106107 108 109 110 111 112 114 115 118 119 120 122 123 124125 126 127 128 129 130 131132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 141142 143 144 145146 147 148 149 151 152 153 155 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 4243 44 4546 48 47 49 EX. TBC 747.70 EX. TBC 747.53 EX. POWER POLE TO BE REMOVED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO BE UNDERGROUNDED SLURRY & RESTRIPE HMA ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE SLURRY & RESTRIPE HMA ALONG PROJECT FRONTAGE ACCESS RIGHTS TO BE WAIVED ALONG DEODAR WAY 1 2
3 4
5 6 EX. TBC 747.38 EX. TBC 747.14 EX. TBC 746.91 H:\Network_Docs\Horrocks\Zinco Subdivision (PCA-6360-22)\PROJECT\DWG\_PLANS\TSM - SHEET 3.dwg - TSM - SH3 - 11/16/2023 11:40am, zachery.tippin 1 5

REVISIONS
REV # DATE

DRAWING INFO
DATE

DESIGNED
DRAWN
*SEE GENERAL NOTES SHEET

WARNING
0 1 2

IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE
2" THEN DRAWING IS NOT TO
SCALE
www.horrocks.com 3 of
C

CHECKED

PROJECT
D
B
A
#
2 3 4
PCA-6360-22
ZAT
DKM

ZAT/JDM/DKM

11.16.23 3
3 ZINCO SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA

EXISTING SITE AND TREE SURVEY

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
6172 Meister Way, Suite 1
Anderson, CA 96007
(530) 365-5610 NOTE: TREES SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF A FIELD STUDY OF THE SITE PERFORMED BY WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGERS. FOR DETAILS SEE ZINCO PROPERTY BIOLOGICAL REVIEW (OCTOBER 2022) TREE SURVEY No. 82097 NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
H
O
R
R
O
C
K
S
E
N
G I N
E
E
R
S
0 30' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30'
S - 2022 - 02416 LEGEND HMA AREA TO BE SLURRY SEALED AND RESTRIPED EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREES TO REMAIN (1) 13" BLUE OAK (6) 14" BLUE OAK (60) 25" BLUE OAK (123) 13" BLUE OAK (128) 17" BLUE OAK (149) 12" BLUE OAK TREE CONSERVATION TABLE POINT NO. TREE DESCRIPTION PROTECT/REMOVE 1 13" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 2 47" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 3 7.5,9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 4 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 5 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE6 14" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 7 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE8 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 9 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 10 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 11 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 12 10,10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 13 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 14 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 15 25" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 16 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 17 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 18 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 19 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 20 8,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 21 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 22 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 23 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 24 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 25 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 26 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 27 6,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 28 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 29 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 30 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 31 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 32 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 33 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 34 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 35 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 36 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 37 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 38 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 39 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 40 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 41 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 42 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 43 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 44 26" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 45 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 46 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 47 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 48 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 49 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 50 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 51 20" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 52 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 53 29" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 54 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 55 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 56 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 57 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 58 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 59 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 60 25" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 61 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 62 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 63 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 64 10,17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 65 5,7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 66 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 67 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 68 20" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 69 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 70 11,13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 71 14" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 72 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 73 6,8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 74 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 75 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 76 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 77 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 78 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE TREE CONSERVATION TABLE POINT NO. TREE DESCRIPTION PROTECT/REMOVE 79 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 80 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 81 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 82 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 83 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 84 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 85 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 86 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 87 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 88 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 89 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 90 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 91 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 92 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 93 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 94 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 95 18" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 96 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 97 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 98 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 99 9,13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 100 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 101 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 102 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 103 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 104 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 105 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 106 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 107 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 108 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 109 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 110 19" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 111 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 112 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 113 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 114 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 115 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 116 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 117 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 118 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 119 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 120 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 121 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 122 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 123 13" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 124 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 125 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 126 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 127 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 128 17" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 129 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 130 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 131 17" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 132 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 133 16" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 134 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 135 5,5,5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 136 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 137 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 138 7" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 139 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 140 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 141 11" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 142 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 143 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 144 12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 145 13" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 146 10" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 147 9,12" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 148 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 149 12" DBH BLUE OAK PROTECT 150 9" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 151 15" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 152 6" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 153 8" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 154 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 155 5" DBH BLUE OAK REMOVE 1 23 4
5 6
-1--
--------- '-....
'-....
'-....
'-....
0 0 0 0 0 0
.J
... .I
i
I
-.....___ c:~ \. I - 'r[
~Jfr,,., ••• ,' ,/ / '> / ' \
-.c,J . ...cY"'-.._
I
--.....
-----
-------
-------
-
,,-,, _..._.,,
~ -~ '
'/1,J_';,c"'
I '
'---
___ .,,
·~-,
'··--- \ '.',.. ·1+V0 ; ••.•
/ /
\
\
\
\--
-
' ,.
------
•
u,
u 0
... ...
0 :::r:
•
<J
Packet Pg. 898
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Application RZ-2024-00156, by Zinco Holding) Appendix B
NRCS Soil Report
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Shasta County
Area, California
Zinco Subdivision
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 7, 2024
USDA
~
NRCS
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 5 Soil Map (Zinco Subdivision)................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 Map Unit Legend (Zinco Subdivision)...................................................................8 Map Unit Descriptions (Zinco Subdivision)...........................................................8 Shasta County Area, California.......................................................................10 NeE2—Newtown gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded..............10 RdA—Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, moist, MLRA 17....... 11 4 Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 6 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map (Zinco Subdivision)
4497030 4497050 4497070 4497090 4497110 4497130 4497150 4497170 4497190 4497030 4497050 4497070 4497090 4497110 4497130 4497150 4497170 4497190 549950 549970 549990 550010 550030 550050 550070 550090 550110 550130 550150 550170 550190 550210 549950 549970 549990 550010 550030 550050 550070 550090 550110 550130 550150 550170 550190 550210 40° 37' 26'' N
122° 24' 33'' W
40° 37' 26'' N
122° 24' 22'' W
40° 37' 21'' N
122° 24' 33'' W
40° 37' 21'' N
122° 24' 22'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,200 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Shasta County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 28, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 8, 2019—Jun 21, 2019
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 §
□ (I -
D lb
~
{j
□ ....
~
181 ,,,.....,
* +-H
◊ ~
X ~
..
. ~
0 ~
A.
~ •
0 0
V
+
....
.. ..
0 ~
%f
~ -
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Map Unit Legend (Zinco Subdivision)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI NeE2 Newtown gravelly loam, 30 to
50 percent slopes, eroded

0.6 10.1%
RdA Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 5
percent slopes, moist, MLRA
17 5.3 89.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 5.9 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions (Zinco Subdivision)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the Custom Soil Resource Report
8 Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
9 Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Shasta County Area, California
NeE2—Newtown gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfr9
Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Newtown and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Newtown
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: gravelly loam
H2 - 8 to 18 inches: very gravelly clay loam
H3 - 18 to 35 inches: clay loam
H4 - 35 to 65 inches: silty clay loam
H5 - 65 to 72 inches: gravelly silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 30 to 50 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XD088CA - UPLAND TERRACE
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Minor Components
Perkins
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Red bluff
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
RdA—Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, moist, MLRA 17 Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2w8bj
Elevation: 430 to 1,080 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 28 to 49 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 310 to 335 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Redding and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Redding
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over clayey alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over cemented alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock over tehama formation
Typical profile
A1 - 0 to 5 inches: gravelly loam
A2 - 5 to 6 inches: loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Bt - 6 to 13 inches: clay
Btqm - 13 to 28 inches: cemented very gravelly material 2C - 28 to 60 inches: stratified sand to loam to clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; 10 to 30 inches to duripan Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 5 to 13 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.2 to 0.5 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: R017XD089CA - ACID TERRACE
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Igo
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Clough
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Swales
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear, concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Red bluff
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, ponded
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, toeslope
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Vernal pools
Down-slope shape: Linear, concave
Across-slope shape: Linear, concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Appendix C
Historical Aerial Images
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning August 10, 1998,
Aerial Photograph from Google Earth
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision May 11, 2024
,Aerial Photograph from Google Earth
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Appendix D
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Species List
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2025-0000902
Project Name: Zinco Property
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
2 of 7
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
3 of 7
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
4 of 7

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2025-0000902
Project Name: Zinco Property
Project Type: Commercial Development
Project Description: land development
Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@40.62333615,-122.40786366643925,14z Counties: Shasta County, California
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
5 of 7

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
6 of 7
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123
Threatened

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Project code: 2025-0000902 10/02/2024 16:33:33 UTC
7 of 7

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Vestra Resources Inc
Name: Lucas Murtha
Address: 5300 Aviation Drive
City: Redding
State: CA
Zip: 96002
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5302232585
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Appendix E
CNDDB Occurrences
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB OCTOBER 2024
P:\GIS\72451\Figures\BRA\72451_CNDDB_Table.docx

CNDDB OCCURRENCES

ZINCO PROPERTY SUBDIVISION

REDDING, CALIFORNIA
Common Name Scientified Name Federal Status State Status Rare Plant
Ranking CDFW Status Other Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted Endangered FP BLM_S; CDF_S;
IUCN_LC; USFS_S
Chinook salmon - Central Valley
spring-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
pop. 11 Threatened Threatened AFS_TH
Chinook salmon - Sacramento River
winter-run ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
pop. 7 Endangered Endangered AFS_EN
Dubious pea
Lathyrus sulphureus var.
argillaceus None None 3
Foothill yellow-legged frog - north
coast DPS Rana boylii pop. 1 None None SSC BLM_S; USFS_S Green sturgeon - southern DPS Acipenser medirostris pop. 1 Threatened None SSC AFS_VU; IUCN_EN Henderson's bent grass Agrostis hendersonii None None 3.2 Maverick clover Trifolium piorkowskii None None 1B.2
Northwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata
Proposed
Threatened None SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_VU;
USFS_S
Red Bluff dwarf rush
Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus None None 1B.1 BLM_S; USFS_S
Steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 11 Threatened None SSC AFS_TH
Sulphur Creek brodiaea Brodiaea matsonii None None 1B.1 BLM_S; SB_BerrySB Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii None None SSC BLM_S; IUCN_LC;
USFS_S
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus Threatened None
*This list includes species identified within 5 miles of the subject property.

I I
I I I I - I l
-
I I
' 1 I -
- -
I I ' 1 I
-
~ -
I I L__ -
1--- I
l - f------ - I--- - ~ - L__ I I -
I I
L__ I r-- - - - -
-

I--- I I
I--- I
L__ I
i-- 1-~ - f---------- ~
I
- f----------~
- -
1 - f-------
I I I
-
L I I
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Attachment D
City of Redding Preliminary Drainage Report for Zinco Subdivision Horrocks, June 2023
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

CITY OF REDDING

PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT

ZINCO SUBDIVISION
APN: 114-050-005 & 114-050-006
3150 & 3250 JORDAN LANE

REDDING, CA
JUNE, 2023

HORROCKS
6172 MEISTER WAY, SUITE #1
P.O. BOX 1307
ANDERSON, CA 96007
(560) 365-5610

06/26/23
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning HORROCKS – 06/26/23 2/6
ZINCO SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Table of Contents
Preliminary Project and Analysis Overview .................................................................................................. 3 Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4 Methods: ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Description of Soil Types: .......................................................................................................................... 4 Design Assumptions: ................................................................................................................................. 4 Model Input: ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 1: Hydrologic Parameters (Preliminary) ...................................................................................... 5 Model Results: .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Peak Runoff Estimates (Preliminary) ....................................................................................... 6 Exhibits:
1: Pre-Development Site
2: Post-Development Site
Appendix A: Preliminary Hydrograph Report
Appendix B: NRCS Soils Report
Appendix C: NOAA Rainfall Data

Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning HORROCKS – 06/26/23 3/6
ZINCO SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Preliminary Project and Analysis Overview
The project site, comprised of 3150 and 3250 Jordan Lane (APNs: 114-050-005 & 114-050-006), is located in Northeast Redding at the intersection of Jordan Lane and Deodar Way. The developer proposes to construct a 16 lot subdivision with 8 lots in RS3.5 and 8 lots in RM-6.

The site encompasses approximately 4.45 acres, with the westerly 3.42 acres generally sloping northwest to the adjacent parcel and the easterly 1.03 acres draining to the northeast to Deodar Lane.

The soil is described primarily as Redding gravelly loam with a small portion of the site being Newtown gravelly loam, with grades between 0 and 1 percent.

From the City of Redding City-Wide Master Storm Drain Study, the site discharges in both the Sulphur Creek Basin and the Boulder Creek Basin. For this project, the analysis will look to restrict storm water discharge to pre-development levels in both the Boulder Creek Basin and Sulphur Creek basins. To reflect the pre-development discharges to both basins, the acreages of land discharging to each basin before development will remain the same acreages in the post-developed site, see Exhibits 1 and 2.

For the drainage basin going to Sulphur Creek, on-site storm water will be directed, via surface flow and storm drain infrastructure, to a vegetated infiltration basin located in the northwest of the development. Outflow from the basin will be restricted to pre-project levels and directed to an outlet control structure located at the northwest end of the project which will allow stormwater to flow westerly, in line with the pre-development drainage pattern. For the drainage basin going to Boulder Creek, on-site storm water will be directed, via surface flow and storm drain infrastructure, to a vegetated infiltration basin located in the northeast of the development. Outflow from the basin will be restricted to pre-project levels and directed to Deodar by way of an under sidewalk drain in line with the pre-development drainage pattern.

A preliminary hydrologic analysis was performed for the proposed project. The aim of this study is to approximate the required detention storage for the project. Final configurations of detention features, their outlet structures, and the overland release will be detailed in the stormwater management report that will be submitted with the improvement plans upon approval of the project.

Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning HORROCKS – 06/26/23 4/6
ZINCO SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis
Methods:

In order to approximate the required detention storage, a hydrology model was developed using Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk Civil 3D. The model implements the SCS method to determine the peak flow rate produced by the 100-year design storm considering a number of variables:
soil type, ground cover type, flow type, and the design storm type and duration for a specified location (i.e. Type 1A, 100yr-24hr). The following values were used as input into the hydrologic model:
- Rainfall hydrographs based on a Type 1A design storm curve. - NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation data, Station IDs: 04-7304 o 100-year, 24-hour storm – 8.81 inches
- NRCS Soil Survey Database classifications.
- Time of concentration was approximated using the TR-55 method.

Description of Soil Types:

Per the Natural Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, the site is primarily comprised of Redding gravelly loam, type D soil which has a poor hydraulic conductivity. The remainder of the site is comprised of Newtown gravelly loam, type C soil which has a moderate conductivity.

Design Assumptions:

For this preliminary analysis, the pre-development site was taken as two drainage basins DB1A and DB1B, see Exhibit 1. The proposed development also utilizes two basins, DB2A and DB2B, see Exhibit 2.

The detention ponds (D1 and D2) were preliminarily sized to detain the 100-year flows from the postdevelopment sub-basin such that the estimated post-development peak outflow rates from the detention ponds do not exceed the calculated pre-development peak flow rates from DB1A and DB1B for the 100-year, 24-hour design storm event.

The proposed detention feature is a vegetated infiltration basin, which serves to both store and treat the stormwater runoff associated with the project.

Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning HORROCKS – 06/26/23 5/6
ZINCO SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Model Input:

Table 1 below summarizes the inputs used in the hydrology model. Time of concentration was calculated using the TR-55 method accounting for sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and channel flow as applicable across the basin. A composite curve number was calculated for the drainage basin, as required, based on the hydrologic soils group taken from the NRCS soil survey in addition to existing and proposed site conditions.

Table 1: Hydrologic Parameters (Preliminary)
Pre-Development:

Basin Area (Acres) CN Time of Concentration (Min.)
DB1A 3.42 79 36.40
DB1B 1.03 79 27.90
Post-Development:

Basin Area (Acres) CN Time of Concentration (Min.)
DB2A 3.42 87 11.40
DB2B 1.03 83 9.90

Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning HORROCKS – 06/26/23 6/6
ZINCO SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT
Model Results:

The following table summarize the results from the preliminary hydrology model. Detention for the project will be achieved using a vegetated infiltration basin shown in exhibit 2. The feature has been preliminarily sized to detain the 100-year storm event. See appendix C for the preliminary Hydrograph report. This contains the watershed model schematic, hydrographs for the 100 year storm frequency.

Table 2: Peak Runoff Estimates (Preliminary)
Pre-Development:

Basin Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
DB1A N/A N/A 4.67
DB1B N/A N/A 1.51
TOTAL N/A N/A 6.18
Post-Development:

Basin Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
DB2A N/A N/A 6.64
DB2B N/A N/A 1.87
TOTAL N/A N/A 8.51
Post-Development w/ Detention*:

D1 N/A N/A 3.42
D2 N/A N/A 1.28
TOTAL N/A N/A 4.70
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning DKM ENGINEERING – 11/10/21
AIRPORT RV STORAGE – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY HYDROGRAPH REPORT

Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023 Hyd. No. 1
Pre-Development (DB1A)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 4.667 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 8.23 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 76,909 cuft
Drainage area = 3.420 ac Curve number = 79
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.40 min
Total precip. = 8.81 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00

4.00 4.00

5.00 5.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre-Development (DB1A)
Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 1
----- -----------------
- - - - \ - - - - - - - -
- - - _- --:\ -_ - - - - - - -
- - - 7--_ '-~
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023Hyd. No. 4Pre-Development (DB1B)Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.505 cfsStorm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 8.13 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 23,429 cuftDrainage area = 1.030 ac Curve number = 79Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ftTc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 27.90 minTotal precip. = 8.81 in Distribution = Type IAStorm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.001.00 1.002.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Pre-Development (DB1B)
Hyd. No. 4 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 4
- -
-
- -- ---
-\
7- ' - /
-
/ \
Packet Pg. 935
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023Hyd. No. 2Post-Development (DB2A)(NC)Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 6.640 cfsStorm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 7.93 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 92,691 cuftDrainage area = 3.420 ac Curve number = 87Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ftTc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 11.40 minTotal precip. = 8.81 in Distribution = Type IAStorm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.001.00 1.002.00 2.003.00 3.004.00 4.005.00 5.006.00 6.007.00 7.00 Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post-Development (DB2A)(NC)
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 2
j:-
1 -
\
Packet Pg. 936
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023 Hyd. No. 5
Post-Development (DB2B)(NC)
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.865 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 7.97 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 26,040 cuft
Drainage area = 1.030 ac Curve number = 83
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 9.90 min
Total precip. = 8.81 in Distribution = Type IA
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00

2.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post-Development (DB2B)(NC)
Hyd. No. 5 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 5
- -
- -
- -
- -
----
_T -\ - I ~ -
/ -
-
/ \
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023Hyd. No. 3Post-Development DB1AHydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.424 cfsStorm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 8.33 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 92,682 cuftInflow hyd. No. = 2 - Post-Development (DB2A)(NC)Max. Elevation = 746.71 ftReservoir name = D1 Max. Storage = 10,475 cuftStorage Indication method used. 0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.001.00 1.002.00 2.003.00 3.004.00 4.005.00 5.006.00 6.007.00 7.00 Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post-Development DB1A
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 111111111 Total storage used = 10,475 cuft Packet Pg. 938
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020.4 Monday, 06 / 26 / 2023Hyd. No. 6Post-Development DB1BHydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 1.283 cfsStorm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 8.20 hrsTime interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 26,039 cuftInflow hyd. No. = 5 - Post-Development (DB2B)(NC)Max. Elevation = 749.98 ftReservoir name = D1 Max. Storage = 1,491 cuftStorage Indication method used. 0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)

0.00 0.001.00 1.002.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Post-Development DB1B
Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 6 Hyd No. 5 Total storage used = 1,491 cuft
- -- -- -
- ~-- - - -
--
- -
/ - / l
111111111
Packet Pg. 939
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning DKM ENGINEERING – 11/10/21
AIRPORT RV STORAGE – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT

APPENDIX B

NRCS SOILS REPORT

Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning DKM ENGINEERING – 11/10/21
AIRPORT RV STORAGE – PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT

APPENDIX C

NOAA RAINFALL DATA

Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 2/7/23, 3:29 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.6229&lon=-122.4085&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/3 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Redding, California, USA*
Latitude: 40.6229°, Longitude: -122.4085°
Elevation: 746.88 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.207
(0.178‑0.242)

0.252
(0.217‑0.296)

0.311
(0.267‑0.366)

0.359
(0.306‑0.427)

0.425
(0.347‑0.525)

0.475
(0.379‑0.602)

0.527
(0.408‑0.686)

0.580
(0.435‑0.781)

0.653
(0.467‑0.923)

0.711
(0.488‑1.05)
10-min 0.297
(0.256‑0.347)

0.361
(0.311‑0.424)

0.446
(0.383‑0.525)

0.515
(0.438‑0.612)

0.609
(0.498‑0.752)

0.681
(0.543‑0.863)

0.755
(0.585‑0.984)

0.832
(0.624‑1.12)

0.936
(0.669‑1.32)

1.02 (0.700‑1.50)
15-min 0.359
(0.309‑0.420)

0.437
(0.377‑0.512)

0.539
(0.463‑0.635)

0.623
(0.530‑0.740)

0.736
(0.602‑0.910)

0.824
(0.657‑1.04)

0.913
(0.708‑1.19)

1.01 (0.754‑1.35)

1.13 (0.809‑1.60)

1.23 (0.846‑1.81)
30-min 0.480
(0.414‑0.562)

0.585
(0.504‑0.686)

0.723
(0.621‑0.850)

0.834
(0.710‑0.991)

0.986
(0.806‑1.22)

1.10 (0.880‑1.40)

1.22 (0.948‑1.59)

1.35 (1.01‑1.81)

1.52 (1.08‑2.14)

1.65 (1.13‑2.43)
60-min 0.680
(0.587‑0.796)

0.829
(0.714‑0.972)

1.02 (0.879‑1.20)

1.18 (1.00‑1.40)

1.40 (1.14‑1.73)

1.56 (1.25‑1.98)

1.73 (1.34‑2.26)

1.91 (1.43‑2.57)

2.15 (1.54‑3.04)

2.34 (1.61‑3.44)
2-hr 0.982
(0.847‑1.15)

1.18 (1.01‑1.38)

1.44 (1.23‑1.69)

1.65 (1.40‑1.96)

1.94 (1.58‑2.39)

2.16 (1.72‑2.74)

2.39 (1.85‑3.12)

2.63 (1.97‑3.54)

2.96 (2.12‑4.18)

3.22 (2.21‑4.74)
3-hr 1.21
(1.04‑1.41)

1.44 (1.24‑1.69)

1.75 (1.51‑2.06)

2.01 (1.71‑2.38)

2.35 (1.92‑2.91)

2.62 (2.09‑3.32)

2.89 (2.24‑3.77)

3.18 (2.38‑4.28)

3.57 (2.55‑5.04)

3.88 (2.66‑5.70)
6-hr 1.73
(1.49‑2.03)

2.07 (1.78‑2.42)

2.51 (2.15‑2.95)

2.87 (2.44‑3.41)

3.35 (2.74‑4.14)

3.72 (2.97‑4.72)

4.10 (3.18‑5.35)

4.49 (3.37‑6.05)

5.02 (3.59‑7.10)

5.43 (3.73‑7.99)
12-hr 2.40
(2.07‑2.81)

2.95 (2.54‑3.46)

3.64 (3.13‑4.28)

4.19 (3.56‑4.97)

4.91 (4.01‑6.07)

5.45 (4.35‑6.90)

5.99 (4.64‑7.80)

6.52 (4.89‑8.79)

7.24 (5.17‑10.2)

7.78 (5.34‑11.4)
24-hr 3.32
(2.93‑3.84)

4.20 (3.70‑4.86)

5.29 (4.65‑6.14)

6.14 (5.35‑7.18)

7.23 (6.12‑8.72)

8.03 (6.67‑9.86)

8.81 (7.16‑11.1)

9.58 (7.59‑12.3)

10.6 (8.07‑14.1)

11.3 (8.36‑15.6)
2-day 4.43
(3.91‑5.13)

5.61 (4.94‑6.49)

7.07 (6.21‑8.21)

8.21 (7.16‑9.60)

9.69 (8.20‑11.7)

10.8 (8.95‑13.2)

11.8 (9.62‑14.9)

12.9 (10.2‑16.6)

14.3 (10.9‑19.1)

15.3 (11.3‑21.1)
3-day 5.21
(4.59‑6.03)

6.57 (5.78‑7.61)

8.27 (7.26‑9.60)

9.60 (8.37‑11.2)

11.3 (9.59‑13.7)

12.6 (10.5‑15.5)

13.9 (11.3‑17.4)

15.1 (12.0‑19.5)

16.8 (12.8‑22.4)

18.0 (13.3‑24.8)
4-day 5.85
(5.16‑6.77)

7.36 (6.48‑8.53)

9.25 (8.13‑10.7)

10.7 (9.37‑12.6)

12.7 (10.7‑15.3)

14.1 (11.7‑17.3)

15.5 (12.6‑19.5)

16.9 (13.4‑21.8)

18.7 (14.3‑25.0)

20.1 (14.9‑27.7)
7-day 7.29
(6.43‑8.43)

9.13 (8.04‑10.6)

11.4 (10.0‑13.3)

13.2 (11.5‑15.5)

15.6 (13.2‑18.8)

17.3 (14.4‑21.2)

19.0 (15.4‑23.8)

20.7 (16.4‑26.6)

22.9 (17.4‑30.6)

24.5 (18.1‑33.8)
10-day 8.36
(7.37‑9.68)

10.5 (9.21‑12.1)

13.1 (11.5‑15.2)

15.1 (13.2‑17.6)

17.7 (15.0‑21.4)

19.7 (16.3‑24.1)

21.6 (17.5‑27.1)

23.4 (18.6‑30.2)

25.9 (19.7‑34.6)

27.7 (20.5‑38.2)
20-day 11.1
(9.82‑12.9)

13.9 (12.3‑16.1)

17.3 (15.2‑20.1)

20.0 (17.4‑23.4)

23.4 (19.8‑28.2)

25.8 (21.5‑31.7)

28.2 (22.9‑35.4)

30.5 (24.2‑39.3)

33.6 (25.6‑44.9)

35.8 (26.5‑49.4)
30-day 13.5
(11.9‑15.7)

16.9 (14.9‑19.5)

21.0 (18.4‑24.3)

24.1 (21.0‑28.2)

28.1 (23.8‑33.8)

30.9 (25.7‑38.0)

33.7 (27.4‑42.3)

36.4 (28.8‑46.8)

39.8 (30.4‑53.2)

42.3 (31.3‑58.4)
45-day 16.8
(14.8‑19.5)

20.9 (18.4‑24.2)

25.9 (22.7‑30.0)

29.6 (25.8‑34.6)

34.3 (29.1‑41.4)

37.7 (31.3‑46.3)

40.9 (33.2‑51.3)

44.0 (34.9‑56.7)

47.9 (36.6‑64.1)

50.8 (37.5‑70.0)
60-day 19.9
(17.5‑23.0)

24.6 (21.6‑28.5)

30.2 (26.6‑35.1)

34.5 (30.1‑40.4)

39.8 (33.7‑48.0)

43.6 (36.2‑53.5)

47.1 (38.3‑59.2)

50.5 (40.1‑65.1)

54.8 (41.8‑73.3)

57.9 (42.8‑79.9)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
------
: D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
C I
C I
C I
C I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
D I
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 2/6/23, 3:27 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.6228&lon=-122.4097&data=intensity&units=english&series=pds 1/4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Redding, California, USA*
Latitude: 40.6228°, Longitude: -122.4097°
Elevation: m/ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches/hour) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 2.48
(2.14‑2.90)

3.02 (2.60‑3.55)

3.73 (3.20‑4.39)

4.31 (3.67‑5.12)

5.10 (4.16‑6.30)

5.70 (4.55‑7.22)

6.32 (4.90‑8.23)

6.96 (5.22‑9.37)

7.84 (5.60‑11.1)

8.53 (5.86‑12.5)
10-min 1.78
(1.54‑2.08)

2.17 (1.87‑2.54)

2.68 (2.30‑3.15)

3.09 (2.63‑3.67)

3.65 (2.99‑4.51)

4.09 (3.26‑5.18)

4.53 (3.51‑5.90)

4.99 (3.74‑6.72)

5.62 (4.01‑7.94)

6.11 (4.20‑8.99)
15-min 1.44
(1.24‑1.68)

1.75 (1.51‑2.05)

2.16 (1.85‑2.54)

2.49 (2.12‑2.96)

2.94 (2.41‑3.64)

3.30 (2.63‑4.17)

3.65 (2.83‑4.76)

4.02 (3.02‑5.42)

4.53 (3.24‑6.40)

4.93 (3.38‑7.25)
30-min 0.960
(0.828‑1.12)

1.17 (1.01‑1.37)

1.45 (1.24‑1.70)

1.67 (1.42‑1.98)

1.97 (1.61‑2.44)

2.21 (1.76‑2.79)

2.45 (1.90‑3.19)

2.69 (2.02‑3.63)

3.03 (2.17‑4.29)

3.30 (2.27‑4.85)
60-min 0.680
(0.587‑0.796)

0.829
(0.714‑0.972)

1.02 (0.879‑1.20)

1.18 (1.00‑1.40)

1.40 (1.14‑1.73)

1.56 (1.25‑1.98)

1.73 (1.34‑2.26)

1.91 (1.43‑2.57)

2.15 (1.54‑3.04)

2.34 (1.61‑3.44)
2-hr 0.491
(0.424‑0.575)

0.589
(0.508‑0.691)

0.718
(0.617‑0.845)

0.824
(0.701‑0.979)

0.968
(0.792‑1.20)

1.08 (0.862‑1.37)

1.20 (0.927‑1.56)

1.32 (0.987‑1.77)

1.48 (1.06‑2.09)

1.61 (1.11‑2.37)
3-hr 0.402
(0.347‑0.471)

0.481
(0.414‑0.563)

0.583
(0.501‑0.686)

0.668
(0.568‑0.793)

0.783
(0.640‑0.967)

0.872
(0.696‑1.11)

0.963
(0.747‑1.25)

1.06 (0.794‑1.43)

1.19 (0.849‑1.68)

1.29 (0.886‑1.90)
6-hr 0.289
(0.249‑0.338)

0.345
(0.298‑0.405)

0.419
(0.360‑0.493)

0.479
(0.407‑0.569)

0.560
(0.458‑0.692)

0.622
(0.496‑0.788)

0.685
(0.531‑0.893)

0.750
(0.562‑1.01)

0.838
(0.599‑1.19)

0.907
(0.623‑1.33)
12-hr 0.200
(0.172‑0.234)

0.245
(0.211‑0.287)

0.302
(0.259‑0.355)

0.348
(0.296‑0.413)

0.408
(0.333‑0.504)

0.452
(0.361‑0.573)

0.497
(0.385‑0.647)

0.541
(0.406‑0.729)

0.601
(0.429‑0.849)

0.645
(0.443‑0.949)
24-hr 0.138
(0.122‑0.160)

0.175
(0.154‑0.203)

0.220
(0.194‑0.256)

0.256
(0.223‑0.299)

0.301
(0.255‑0.363)

0.335
(0.278‑0.411)

0.367
(0.298‑0.461)

0.399
(0.316‑0.514)

0.441
(0.336‑0.589)

0.471
(0.349‑0.650)
2-day 0.092
(0.081‑0.107)

0.117
(0.103‑0.135)

0.147
(0.129‑0.171)

0.171
(0.149‑0.200)

0.202
(0.171‑0.243)

0.224
(0.186‑0.276)

0.247
(0.200‑0.310)

0.268
(0.213‑0.346)

0.297
(0.227‑0.397)

0.318
(0.235‑0.439)
3-day 0.072
(0.064‑0.084)

0.091
(0.080‑0.106)

0.115
(0.101‑0.133)

0.133
(0.116‑0.156)

0.157
(0.133‑0.190)

0.175
(0.146‑0.215)

0.193
(0.157‑0.242)

0.210
(0.166‑0.270)

0.233
(0.178‑0.311)

0.250
(0.185‑0.345)
4-day 0.061
(0.054‑0.070)

0.077
(0.068‑0.089)

0.096
(0.085‑0.112)

0.112
(0.098‑0.131)

0.132
(0.112‑0.159)

0.147
(0.122‑0.180)

0.162
(0.131‑0.203)

0.176
(0.140‑0.227)

0.195
(0.149‑0.261)

0.209
(0.155‑0.289)
7-day 0.043
(0.038‑0.050)

0.054
(0.048‑0.063)

0.068
(0.060‑0.079)

0.079
(0.069‑0.092)

0.093
(0.078‑0.112)

0.103
(0.086‑0.126)

0.113
(0.092‑0.142)

0.123
(0.097‑0.158)

0.136
(0.104‑0.182)

0.146
(0.108‑0.201)
10-day 0.035
(0.031‑0.040)

0.044
(0.038‑0.050)

0.054
(0.048‑0.063)

0.063
(0.055‑0.074)

0.074
(0.063‑0.089)

0.082
(0.068‑0.101)

0.090
(0.073‑0.113)

0.098
(0.077‑0.126)

0.108
(0.082‑0.144)

0.115
(0.085‑0.159)
20-day 0.023
(0.020‑0.027)

0.029
(0.026‑0.034)

0.036
(0.032‑0.042)

0.042
(0.036‑0.049)

0.049
(0.041‑0.059)

0.054
(0.045‑0.066)

0.059
(0.048‑0.074)

0.064
(0.050‑0.082)

0.070
(0.053‑0.094)

0.075
(0.055‑0.103)
30-day 0.019
(0.017‑0.022)

0.023
(0.021‑0.027)

0.029
(0.026‑0.034)

0.033
(0.029‑0.039)

0.039
(0.033‑0.047)

0.043
(0.036‑0.053)

0.047
(0.038‑0.059)

0.050
(0.040‑0.065)

0.055
(0.042‑0.074)

0.059
(0.043‑0.081)
45-day 0.016
(0.014‑0.018)

0.019
(0.017‑0.022)

0.024
(0.021‑0.028)

0.027
(0.024‑0.032)

0.032
(0.027‑0.038)

0.035
(0.029‑0.043)

0.038
(0.031‑0.048)

0.041
(0.032‑0.052)

0.044
(0.034‑0.059)

0.047
(0.035‑0.065)
60-day 0.014
(0.012‑0.016)

0.017
(0.015‑0.020)

0.021
(0.018‑0.024)

0.024
(0.021‑0.028)

0.028
(0.023‑0.033)

0.030
(0.025‑0.037)

0.033
(0.027‑0.041)

0.035
(0.028‑0.045)

0.038
(0.029‑0.051)

0.040
(0.030‑0.055)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
------
: II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I I I I I I I I I II I

D I I I
D I I
D I I
D I I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I

D I II I
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Attachment E
Wildland Resource Managers Oak Evaluation Form
Location Zinco/Redding, May 2, 2024
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning

CONDITION RATING FOR LANDSCAPE TREES
t rr ' C, . J.-'Cllll
-mil v1g1 r ·.-. II ml-.
[, ,,;II II! ,s ,ound and '.> st
(llObl?.111 111 tJI
hn,, r 1-.n th •,
col : r:o; E . . e) •
fair
h
Formula
Values
' • 90
]· ill
! ' 5. ], s
/ ,CJ - i l,;
• I J.1
-, . (, l &. I
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Wildland Resource Managers Oak Evaluation Form Date : 5 /-< / -:J '-I · J ,.) l (. i/
Location Z, ·,,.( .. )\eS:.··'1 '\·~ Surveyor -, l'i \?r- '1\ 5 Page / --- Tree number Tree Structure Tree Health Condition Rating I I, 0 .1s·. I, err- E
,i__ I ,o , c1u 1, 9() £
~6 cc.,__ f ~ -- - --------------- -- H ---•
s .~s • 7.5 \.6 0 G
6 ~, 9 () ,75 11 ~ $ c.,
17 710 S-CJ t, G ,, ., '
7 ' i .S ,70 . j' if!] ~
R lj 80 ' ~o I .CO
lb f l!:: ,1() /I<-/ 5 ' F
IS gs I &(J /, ( 5 (: I ,,
Jo ' S/ • z·~ '· 7 \:-
// f3 . ~ o /, 6 3 {·
/ ~ - c . 7S l,SC F '
.I --"
14 •

1.!: ,cc /,:;-.: I=" \I
I ::i- ' 90 ,s,o I, 70 f,
3 6 q ,q- j ,- . ,• & , • ~J ~-
37 '7> 25S 1, 6 ') ,,
C
S£ ,A I {j ) . ( ) I
.
·-- ,,..7 J~ Si I, G' J... I
.....I I
53 I ~ , 75 I '
55 ss , s ,2 1. 6 - 3 C:j I I 6 17 1. 3
4 0 ,c.;s I 7 5~ l,2C f /_;..;,-~'~'
C:t I Cc,,._f- ._: c.l t-
,3 3 ,c;, .5 ,7S 1,4 CJ F v
J ..:.; Q Cf /, 7 c ' .J . 2__5 ,75 ,b I 55" .£
4 1 ,7S , 7 /, LIS' ,·
L.) ; . 6S ,7q - )/I L( tPacket Pg. 946 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Z
/ r)C ()
Tree Number Tree Structure Tree Health Condition Rating '-IS
/ I f Cf
G,:ifc p
27 1.f6 ~ 75 i, 5:S ,
C V'
7 'a' -, I
75 I j- / 12. s F
21 I 7 .':)
1 ~--s
1,3 C, p ;,
Ja
, 6 ' l/J 1,
0 5 p y
31 C 0--t
_j z , 7S , 7S
);SC
-r·
i9
-
"5 , 15 I, C c- I,
70 , 5 . -5: /, 0 f
_sq I ,:_.; t.1S I S..5 ? I
V
·- hO r6 [ /\J /, 20 i·
q5 o,)q
" sS
I , 7:J 6- :;
qq }
qs 0- q I
? --:- ' ' ..J 6
/QO ' (,; s- .. c;
I, -r 5 6-
I OL
, J . 7S f,SS F
I 19
, 8 I 8 116 6
/ O 3
.~ l '7 1,-5 F
/04 ,8 0 , o
I , C 6-
/(),5 I '?' , ,S 1,55- t;-
I CX
,7 ~ . 7S l_ :>O r
/6 7 \ ,_s , 7'5 /, S F
I ;.5
1(.5 7-S I
i t...; J F
I I 6 ,78' /, qr; . ( ·:r· i
' I
// 7 .;,, ), tfC,
-.
1ft L , ·~ V
J / s l) • ..5
71 /, 44 ~
Jfq lj
- ,r4 I, 9/ r:
_ ;_;,
/ 2. 0 . i r , 7G ;, I./') ,.
,-
122 r ~ I 2{
l,G 6
I 13 ~ ,CJ
11/ C
lo
,::
(._,' ~ G
1 1 13 f
/C/ 7 ti ,1 I, 4 ,:
))(y ' 7-5 17 8 IJ J G J IZ I L/5' /' .::..; .- p tZ ~ / I/ t I 7 3 J ,5 f 6-- Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning ,... ... _.J
I (~
:Z:1v1C(j
Tree Number Tree Structure Tree Health Condition Rating CJ3 .7 $ ·74 l.ifl f
t A- '3 I 7 ::> lg C: ,,,- I. __, & V
I 2. Cj ,7:S- , 7S 1, -7 F
/3 0
7c.- r 0 I 7 'ef
I,.!., 6- 6 ✓
} 2.. '6 I ~() I g5 I, (.S ,.::· / .2_ 7 1 75 ~ I c; s /· , J _, I Z '-I '6'Cf ,<iS
I. 7 c../ & V
/2_') 1 7S J
f :J (. So
-r
l-7 G
0 C;(J... CY D.eo&
) 3g I t; ! L/ I .s-o p

1.3 9
I s-
_
0 LtS ,9.S .p
I i./u , 75 , 1S
/, 5 F I,
JLJ'l I)-:) ,15 /,,5' F
I L/L b I 7 I 7 , _) F
jL/j I 7 {'
, 7S ),~ l
/

1.5 J I '8 /J I. :FS G
/SC .7 ,s-5 /,35 f 14 q ,8 75' /,55 6
J <--/ 8 I l/~ 17 I &_j e V'
-r ch:d s I
l=Yc. c\\~11\ 1 2 I G c.; 1. .. 3 ~ F:-cu· r 3 ,t/ Pc,.1~ 25 I) e, \I' / , ;.C.Cf
I) t;: ._;_,; )
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Attachment F
Zinco Property Wetlands Delineation
Wildland Resource Managers, December 2024
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Zinco Property Wetlands Delineation
Prepared for
Horrock Engineering
Andrson, California
DRAFT
Prepared by
December 2024
P.O. Box 102 • Round Mountain. CA 96084
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………1
Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Soils…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………………………….…….4
Jurisdictional Status……………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Federal………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
State………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Are these areas vermal pools?...................................................................................7 Implication of Status………………………..…………………………………………………………………….8 Data Sheets……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Introduction:

This wetlands delineation has been prepared at the request of Horrocks Engineering of Anderson, California for the Zinco Holdings LLC property located in the Buckeye District of Redding, California. The property is located at the northwest corner of Deodar Way and Jordan Lane in the southwest ¼ of the southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 32 north, Range 5 west MDBM. See Figure 1. The property consists of two parcels, assessor’s numbers 114050005, which is 2.16 acres and 114050006 which is 2.5 acres for a total of 4.66 acres. The property’s address is 3150 Jordon Lane, Redding, California.

Figure 1. Property Project Location
1 Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning In October of 2022 WRM prepared a biological review (BR) for the subject property. 2022 was the third year of drought in California and at that time there was no evidence of wetlands except for some minor tire rutting that held water after the fall rains. The BR acknowledged that due to the time the BR was requested to be done, plant surveys would be inconclusive due to surveys being conducted outside the bloom period (WRM 2022). 2023 and 2024 were both wet years with abundant rainfall across northern California. Consequently, public comment received by the City of Redding suggested the presence of wetland features on the property. In turn, in December of 2024 Horrock’s Engineering requested an examination of the area to see if wetland features are present. The report details the methods and results of that examination.

Methods:

In May 2024 the site was visited by WRM staff on the 15th, 17th, 20th, and 21st. During these visits, WRM utilized the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) Wetland Determination Data Form for the Arid West Region to note field conditions for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. The ACOE “Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region” was utilized in determining the vegetation, soil and hydrological character of each site. The ACOE “State of California 2021 Wetland Plant List” was used to determine the wetland status of plants identified at the site. The California Water Boards State Wetland Definition was consulted to understand what constituted waters of the state.

Results:

Soils
There are two soil types found on the Zinco project area. As shown on Table 1 taken from the NRCS web soil survey these are the Newtown gravelly loam and the Redding gravelly loam.

Table 1
Shasta Gounty Aliea, Califolinia {CA6O7)
S h ast a County A r e a , Calirfornia ( CA607) ®
Map Unit
Symbol
N eE2
Map Unit Name
N ewto wn
g r avell y loam, 3 0
t o so p er cen t
s lo p es, er o d e d
RdA R e dding gravell y
loam, o t o 5
p e r cent s lo p es,
m o ist, MLRA 1 7
Totaf,s -for Area of
Interest
Acli,es
in AOJ:
0 .5
Peli,oent of
AOJ:
4 . 1 88 ., 9%

4.6 100.00/o
-
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 2 Soil type description: (from: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Shasta County, California) Newton gravelly loam: This soil is found in the northwest corner of the project area. See Figure 2. The Newton series consists of well-drained soils that formed in old alluvium from mixed sources. They are on high terraces with a representative profile of the surface layer being brown slightly acid very gravelly loam and mixed very pale brown and brown slightly acid very gravelly clay loam about 18 inches thick.

The subsoil is brown, strongly acid clay and pale-brown slightly acid silty clay loam. The soil has slow permeability with medium runoff and the hazard of erosion is moderate. Available water capacity is 9 to 11 inches. The soil is typically 60 inches deep (USDA 1974).

Redding gravelly loam: This soil type makes up the majority of the soil on the project site. The Redding series consists of well-drained soils that contain an indurated hardpan. They are underlain by old mixed alluvium. The soils are nearly level to undulating on hummocky high terraces with slopes between 0 and 8 percent. In a representative profile the surface layer is strong brown, strongly acid gravelly loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is mixed reddish-brown and red strongly acid clay that extends to a depth of about 13 inches. Below this layer is an indurated very gravelly hardpan about 15 inches thick. Stratified mixed alluvial material is below the hardpan. Runoff is very slow and the hazard of erosion is none to slight. Available water capacity is 2 to 5.5 inches. Some available water is held above the hardpan during the early part of the growing season. The hardpan is at a depth of 10 to 30 inches (USDA 1974).

Figure 2. Soil Map of the Zinco project area
3 Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning As noted in the Shasta County soil survey, there is a hardpan at a depth of 10 to 30 inches within the surveyed area. On the Zinco site, WRM found the hard pan to be at around 10 to 11 inches deep. This hard pan is causing water to perch and remain close to the surface in several areas on the property during the rainy season and into the spring.

Wetlands:

There are no ponds, streams, seeps, or spring type features on the property. WRM found four areas where the shallow soils and hard pan have contributed to the presence of vernal wetland features as described by the ACOE literature. Figure 3 shows the location of these areas.

Figure 3. Location of wetland areas

The extent of each of these wetland areas was mapped using a Trimble TEC650 GNSS sub-meter accurate instrument. Figure 4 on the page following displays the area of the four vernal wetland features.

Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 4 Figure 4. Extent of vernal wetland features.

Figure 4
Site 2 is the largest, being in the northeast property corner area with Site 1 being just south of Site 2.

Site 3 is just southeast of site 2 and Site 4 is in the southwest quarter of the property. These vernal wetland features were determined utilizing the ACOE “Wetland Determination Data Forms-Arid West Region” for a data point within each wetland area. See attached wetland delineation data forms. These areas contain deep rutting of the surface soil caused by mechanical clearing of vegetation and ATV off roading activity.
5 dl!D!l:rillklin
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Jurisdictional Status
Federal Status under the Clean Water Act
After the Supreme Court Ruling in the Sackett vs Environmental Protection Agency case which redefined “Waters of the United States” (WOUS) the Army Corp of Engineers published "Guide for landowner fact sheet, revised definition of Waters of the United States, Final Rule" on line at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-
12/Guide%20for%20Landowners%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

In that publication is the sections, quoted below, that identifies what water are not WOUS, as follows:
“1) What are the exclusions in the final rule?
The rule excludes certain features that commonly contain water but are not “waters of the United States”:
• Prior converted cropland;
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
• Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
• Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of “waters of the United States;”
• Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow, and
• Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.”
The highlighted section would apply to the Zinco project area as evidence in the field indicates that vehicular activity from mechanical clearing of vegetation and additional ATV off roading coupled with the shallow soil conditions has contributed to soil disturbance and rutting resulting in the occurrence of vernal wetlands on the property.
6 Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning State Status of vernal wetlands
California State Water Board Definition of a Wetland is as follows:
“An area is a wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation” (Water Boards. 2019 pg. 1).

The determination of a state wetland is laid out in the Water Boards Procedures:
“The Procedures define an area as a wetland if it meets three criteria: wetland hydrology, wetland soils, and (if vegetated) wetland plants. An area is a wetland if: (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. The Procedures provide the same wetland delineation methods that are used by the Army Corps of Engineers” (California Water Board 2024).

The water code defines waters of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” and “(c) Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape” (Water Boards. 2019 pg. 2). Such is the case for the vernal wetlands on the Zinco property.

Unlike the Federal rule, the California definition of a wetland does not include any exclusions. Therefore, the vernal wetlands on the project area would be considered State waters.

Are these areas vernal pools?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes vernal pools as follows:
“Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that occur under the Mediterranean climate conditions of the West Coast and in glaciated areas of northeastern and midwestern states. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring, but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. These wetlands range in size from small puddles to shallow lakes and are usually found in a gently sloping plain of grassland. Western vernal pools are sometimes connected to each other by small drainages known as vernal swales, forming complexes. Beneath vernal pools lies either bedrock or a hard clay layer in the soil that helps keep water in the pool.
7 Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning “Climatic changes associated with each season cause dramatic changes in the appearance of vernal pools. The pools collect water during winter and spring rains, changing in volume in response to varying weather patterns. During a single season, pools may fill and dry several times. In years of drought, some pools may not fill at all” (EPA. 2024).

Based on this description the vernal wetlands on the project area may be called vernal pools as they appear as elongated puddles that range in depth from 2” to 10.5” with a mean depth of 6-8 inches* with saturated soils over a clay and indurated very gravelly hardpan (USDA 1974). *(measured in December 2024 by WRM)
Implications
While the vernal wetlands are not Federally protected, they are State protected. To fill waters of the State “an applicant must file an application with the Water Boards for any activity that could result in the discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the state in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3855” (Water Boards. 2019 pg.4). Once the application is filed the Regional Water Quality Control Board will determine the amount of mitigation required, if any.

Report prepared by:

Wildland Resource Managers
P.O. Box 192
Round Mountain, California 96084
8 Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Arid W t Region
0 ro1, ;;tiS1
"'PP' ,;a ,:•O.-,rer i i;:a;e. ~ ~r,pl ,g 01r1.
1r,-,..,uga1or1s1 _____ ___,__ ____ W_ f_{I_I _____ <;ec:or, 10,.nshc Ran~ .:..::.:+tc,,.. I I 1 f S4.' MO - l"I m•o'TTI rh " lop. terraco ,eli,:f (ml '" ., COl'MiX. ~orll' rl a • 4.l <;Jo CA /~ I - -- ::iuD•eglO" IL~~, --"''-'-----------.-
s.,,1 r,,s.111 Unrl NalTI• _ __, \.,_(e-:,..::=-'-'--+-"'"..:....;;-=- f ~,~Lang: .J2.__ :l~~ ,.~ b&1um:
-------'-'-----"-'---- N•N I a.,~,ifi~,orn ________ _
",f.- dlmanc 1 ••fdrol~lc conllttong ::,o Ille site ,:yp,caJ ror 1!1it r., ar ye~r" ·f,.,-, >1 11, vcc;ic,I htm __ s.,.1 __)__ or I lydrrAo!lV ...:I- s1gn11icant1y <!l&r,roeri? Ara Veqetatton • S I o· H'/dn:10111' __ n9tur6.I p, bll!1r, ,:7 Are ' urn11,I Cirni·r lance9' esent7 Ve• No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attacti site map snowing sampllng point locations, lramsects, importBnt features, etc.

Hydro~")'llt v eqetall Preaer,1?
I lyd11c Soll P1;,senl7
'189 II'
Y,:5
-----;,-
"'r-.. y
p --/•r
No
No
No _ __
r I 1.o.7f1 'J
VEGETATION- Usa c names of plants.
~
.!>.Jr,-0lu1n Ooor1n1,t l idlC&lD'
~-,i.? tatJe
2 ---------------------------
l ------------------------ ,q __________ .;..... ___ - -------- ------------ --- ------------ 2 --------------------------- - - ------------------- ---- "1 ----- ----------------- ----- 5 --~.:....:..== :c..:....;,==-=======-=- __ , __ ---- F= 4n. 2 - JJ.U.~~"'-..:iu:"=-'-"=="--'-------~ • C" C. 4,· J --~:....::.~=:......:: ____ .._ ____ _ /_Q_ I
ln ,,. ;Ac..
s _...:..:...'--''-'-'-...!....C..;;.;;.;;.;__.;.;;_ _ _:;c..;;;..._.__=-....;_;_......;_ -_-_-_-_- __ w __ h_ c_ 1 6 -L~L!!!.:!.
a---------------------------
,. •·octy YIM S·r:;n1rn (Plat •17n ______ .

I - - --------------------------
12 ·1,, :Iara Crcu·d
I~- ,ko.

V411; __::::__. No ___
-..{
Dominance TMl wor1c&hNn.:

Nu-nbe, o• Dcf'l'~snt s:ec:e1
-hS: Are OtL FP.CW, ar ~AC.
-1)1:tl NUMbef ot DoMlnsm
Spl:!clt!.! Auo All S~ St!!
Percent a comment l;oeae~
7'!11 Are OBL f-A.GW or 1-P.C
Pn,wlancc lnde:,. wo,ks~et:
4 MulLJll~ b~
QBL &poe1c~ , =
f-A•:;;,,,, apet18S
FAC apecillll 3=
r ,,cu 1:iecea )( 4 =
UP ~,..,=~ .. 5.
~c«JmnT., 11 :A'.,
H'f'(lroph~c Vegetation lndic;.;,1ors :
..y Dominance I es1 ,s " 5C%
~ p,i,.,, nee IO!li!l( IE. :,J •J
I
(61
INBt
IHI
- Mr;,rp~<lagn.dl Atl~pl>1IIM & I rProoldfr BUll00rt!np u1o1a In 'lerT\!I ; ar on a eepra •~0011
_ Pt~hl!'l"1f11ic 11'/<lrOJJllyllc \lep!!:8110" 1 ll:::Xpla1nl "ltl1C8[0r& ~, ·ya-c ~ii :JO •·ro11ard ~ ,c1,,..,gy MUSI te ,reaem, u-le1» dl&!uroo o· IJl"Obir"Tli!'ic
H','dr0t1hvtlc
Vegeutlon
Pr01$11nt? Yes y No
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SOIL ______ ______ - ----,-----,,-- ~ampllfl!! ''a I Profile Oescripfion· (Descr1be to thA depth needed to doc;11mant the Indicator.,. confirm the abaence of lndlcetors I Cep111 ~ atr1x Rcdox ea:ire•
Jl.oc;.-!';!ll_ C ,, /m:Jf51J _% __ ~ Lt:!.Q!.§j__ -~
(;-(~ ~I I -5:!_
I 1 1,.s"JrU1-t/ 1 t;
&J..P.."" l- ;r h , -
-------------- -- ------------- Type C- ~on01:ntra•lo111 0=0c 1ion_. RM=H~::auc:ed M3lr , CS=Co~ered or :::oalt!d Sa-o Crams 'LoC!illon FL -Pere I 1n,n9 M=',1atMc.

Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (i\opll<;able to all UlR~. unlou, ofherw1M1 noted.\ Indicators for PrC>blo.rmitic "ydoc; S011&'· -ils1osat 1A 1:,
_ -imlc Eplpe::lon !Al'i
Black H1s1Jc iAll
t vdrciion Sulfioe (A4;
_ 81•111irr,, LJ'(fll6 (A5) I LAA Ct
_ 1 :m M..c ► (A91 (LRR D)
0eole1ed :!et:i-;,· Dan< Surta . (A 11'i
_ "Tl•-~~ Durio S "fuoo (A12)
_ s ndy M11r.ky ",1,noral ,S i
_ S;iroy:..; eyed r,1 1rtx fS.t)
_ Slln(ly R DCX (S5t
_ .s·11p,~ct Ma•rix fSct
_ _oa,ry \~utky Mino.I tF1)
L.oarry Gleyea M 1 >- ;~2:
r. :oo Mamx /~J\
_ Reo,1x r.-u ,. S,..,-!ace 1=1:1
(.;e:ile!EO o fl< s,,rfloc 1F71
v Rado• Depeess1ora rr 6'.

Ve• 0 .i, PJols I FQ;-
Re!lttlctlva L:tyc,r (if Plll6tlnt):

I ypP ~h • ~;._ _____ _
'1t,pl \n1111osi //
_ 1 ;:ir Mua< i/,9) II.RR C,
_ 2 :I"' Mu:l< (,\1~1 I RR Bl
Roduced Verne ( ~ 16)
_ R~d P111or1• \;!all!· .al (TF21
_ 01her (rx. l:~m - R marks•
lnellcat::r~ of hvef' crhVt•C vegetation a "Q
'IIEIIBntl yelrologv 1115• 8 Pl D6C 0 1.
unlo1rn d•st.r:::.sd :r problen-.a11c
H\fdrlc Soll PrHtont7 Yu__:::::_ No __ _
Remarks:
_____ _.__ __

HYDROLOGY
r
WetliJnd HvdrolOlilV lndlcatof!I
P!lf"l'-~r\' lodh:.tlm;; {m1m umwo.;•..1ci!.r.s;e!..!re.!:ll~====ll..ll==lll.l'.!- 5 wh)r \1'1/ct~UI 1A ... :
1' I 1;,h Wa1or -aOle 1A21
__,.. Rat'" ~inn IA31
L IJ'.'A1~, \~11,h, re,, ; ( onrfverlne:
_ SA!Jln .r,1 ")rr,n&t5 (il2) 1NonnvenneJ
Unit Uepo&IIS I E.ll (N onnv11rino1
1 Surfa,:::c Sa•I era~ 1 Ef61
_ l11111ttJ,Jl•1>', Jillo1bln ;m Aonal lmapary (B,"
-L Vv':lr"' !'lau,m1 I r.av,,g (:l"I
FiPld Observations·
_ '>.ijllC'llslf611;
_ 'l,ol<:CrustiB12i
_ Aquallr lrwerte:irate6 (I:! 13)
_ 1-<'Vdr er. Sulfde !Joor ;C 11
_ Oxlcll,~ R•1izosphBri!S along L vln~ Rc.ol. IC:\t
Presence ol Red,11:.,d lrn11 (C-4,
_ Rcoo-· Iron ~e::lu:bon ~ nuet1 Scil:r. (C~r
Tnln Murk :'.11rf.a1;e IC/\
other ,:F•ol, ,n in q Tl rlu11
"urf;ico '.'1J..rlOJ Pres rf'
"1•1al('' Tab Present?
Yes --Ne~ Ct!plt, \Inc- S) - -----
Yes _L Ne __ [1npf·· iincres'. ____ _
Soi;.,;ind3.'.)' jr,o..::atar?o 12 or more -eg• ·e<11
_ 'il•ete.· r.tark6 '.81) (RJverlne.I
Sed1men· ..)epos1!!1 1B2) (Rlvarlnc,,
0•1: Depo&is (B3) 1Rt~.rtnl!!•
Ora -.,age Patte--s t! •,::,1
nr,.!,oason Water Ta: ,C2)
Crayr,sh !lurtll\\ ,Cll)
Satc.-ilUor ls cle on Pe• I 1ma9el) (C9'
Sl1 i111w 1-QUllilr.i ,:03:
-Ac N itrJI -nt1 i05l
Sa1ureuon Present"/ 'I es __ Ne__ Dept- 11nc:.ses: _____ Watland HydrollJil)' f>resenf? No __ _ 1 "-Ch lfte~ C 1y lrlngcJ
'Jf!s•c1ih-, Rt1~·<>-'!l D~t., (&t1oam ~a.Qe Tlomlonng well. aerl~I ~11utC>s pr;:;•lous ir-.spec:1orai tr a,, atlP.

S Arn,y 1..oros ot Engineers And ,'Vee- - Vere :m J. . u Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning WETLAND DETERMINATION DA TA FORM - Arid West Reg ion
Pro1 ct/Site ____ _;_ ___ __________ aty,'Counly. ____ _______ Sai'T-.,llrr;;i Date.-...:----=-- 1\pplica nt,o,mer: sampling Polru
lnves.1igalor(s) ----=-~--'-'-'------=....:....:'-'--'------ Secdorl, townah1p, Ri11111J1! ..,_-= __ I_' _____ _ lope, temioo, ecc..). __ .c:;._;..::...::_ ______ Local r ef (concave convex, nooc) Slop,: N I - / ~,, ndfonr1 Subregion fLRRJ: __ _.\ ...... _..,.. _______ ~ Lat l./61) 3' .1...:, ·r., Loni1 '----=-----'-'---- Da ,m ___ _ Soll Map Unit Name . ...:l~~..!i:d!A-~---'R.!!.r .:..· = .:...::::..;.....-,-!....:...-.:..1~.....!./.:.. r --'--.:..• ...!:O::::.-.--=L~J:.:.......;;......1"--- N'M cl89slfica1Jon: _______ _ J .J /vT: ci1n,atlc I hydrologlc condiUons on iho $ltc1ypt::al far th,s lime of year? Y~-- No _ _ (trnc 1111pl,tin In RemarkB.) , Arc V~llltlOn ___L, Soll , o, Hydrology __ !!!Qnlllcanily d181ur1Nld? Are 'Hormal Circurr.si:sl'ICell' preaent7 Yes __ Na __ Ale V~hon __ ,Soll __ ,« HydrQlogy __ lurelly problefflmlc? (If needed, expl.iln ,my answers 1n Remarl<ii.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important foatures, etc.

Hydtophyllc Vegetation Pronli'l y~--- '° ls tt,g S;ampled ArN Hydnc Soil PN!&ent? Yes_ t.o w11hin ii WvtlMd? Yes No
Wlftland HY4r<i1ogy Plesent? Yee __ n
Remer1<e.. '-,• ,~'4111 •'J
VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.
t ree Slratum (Plot 5izo ____ --J
1 ________________ _
e Dtllffltant Indicator
o S~i _film._
~ ------------------------ --- 3 ------------------------- 4 ------------------------ --- ___ = Tot;il Cav,:r
Sapllng,'Shrut> Slrat11T1 (Pio'. i;lzo ____ __,
t -------------------- -------

2. _________________ - --------
3 - ------------------------
5 4 --------------------________________ _ ----- --
___ = Total Co,--cr
~~== (Piohizo· _ __.:.....:...-=--_, ,
~~.:.__---.--:= ~:._:_:_ __ ..ii.£. ~ •
.U:~:..!....i..:..t:.!.:........._.!;!...~~=:.:.;,;~.._-z'..Q__-Z_ ,,··_ _ Fµll '.l -"~=~~....::..:=-------2£L~ FA-c.
4 --------- ------------------- s ________________ _
_ •1....:.:=..:.._~=.:~!......!:...!......JPlll.l.:VI~½1.10.i.;...f!t-..:~ I ,' ;. A C. 7 ---------------------------
s --------------------------- =TCKal Cover
Woody V.ne, Stratum (Plot ISIZe: ____ __,
Dominance Test works"9el:

NIZTlberof Comin~nt P<>de•
1llat An; OB,_ FACW, or FAC
Tolal Nurrtc, o( Do nl
Speciee Across All Strata.
~ ~ or rk>mlnant species
Thal Ale OBL, FA0/11 or FAC
Prevalence lndllx work:5tiallf:
•
2 (Al
tBJ
(' fNB)
J9ti,I 'jl, Coyer of Muljlply bY
OSL spec; '-- x I = __ ....,.__
FM:.W &peclee -~-=:.- x 2 = _ __::._:_
3 = -~~-
- --- ~4
____ x5 =
----'-"-- fA) ....,;2;:..:.7-'j"-. _ (B)
Pr~tence Index = BIA = ---=:::3::::::::==-----l
H~dropt1ytJc Vegetation tndic;;;,tar5:
+- Dormna-.:o Test 1$ >50'll,
-f- Pri:Villcn<e 11¥1ex Is <3.01
rplua9lca Adaptsllons' (Provido &up porting
la in llen-erl<~ or on a ~r,era e r.hoo:)
_ Problem be Hydrophylc Vegat.rnon r- plain)
t _________________ ___ ____ ___ ' lndlca1ore othydnc and wchnd drology must be prr:5Cf'II i.nesa dlelurbed or probklmatic:

2. _________________ --- -------1------
% Bare Gro111d tn erb Str.!!um_~8.:....:... /2::;__
Re1rom:
us Army Colps ol Engineers
___ = T<>'at C'..o,•et
% Cover ol Biotic Crus. ___ _
Hye1rophyt1c
Vagelall0n
Pre5ent?
And WO$/. - cr,;lan .2 o
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SOIL 2 Same, ·-. Point ____ _
Profile Description. (Dncrlbe to the depth needed to &>cumant tho indicator or confirm the ab&en:e of ndlcaton;.J Oeptr,
r .. hP..:
~,,Btrlx RM<>• • t1\l\v1cs
_ _,.C"' ,nl"'p"',..,.1,..11'1,._n.,.iswl!.__ __ 'lh_ ~loJ ,:mo1sq _'Jl __ -1..mL _JJL_ -----------------
-----------------
-------------
-------------- '·ype c-ce.u .enlr 1ir1111 n-ni,ptP.t .011, Rt,1=R~nuooc M~trix CS=Co~ d c< Coatel Sane Grain! ·Loc&11cn l'L~ ore "9 , 1,1•Ma nx Hydric Sacl lndic .. tars: (Applic;,bla to ~II LR!q, tmlan otharwli.e noted.I lndl~t«s tor Problemalk Hy<lrlc Sells 1 _ H1slosnl ,1\ 1 l S,m:fy Redo~ 1S5) _ 1 en \olu0< ;Ai'; ILRR CI _ HIsbc e:icpedon 1.A2: 2 en uc- IA•::,; , LRR BI
Black "i1s1,~ tA3i Loany Mucky M . ,11: 1) Rcdu::ou Vert <: ins·, H lt.lj11)1' SulF>:k (,C.£ '1 LDany Cleyed Matnx :1-21 _ Ret1 Pa~ l"l 'v1i'lt~•:el l ?;, S1rnlIhed Jl er. (l\!i) ILRR c·, _ O,:,plull:d "1at."1( f" 3\ _ 01tie· ,Explain,. R:meru cm Muei< :,:.1;1 rLRR o:

Doplcttxr Solow Do S..raoo 1A t 11
_ , hh~• n:irk S111!;1 .tj (A' ,)
_ &l"<IY IAUdc\l Ml"e<al (Si)
_ Sandy Geyed Mat x JS4 t
Rull'lcOve Layer (If p,~ent)·
~edo• D rk Surf •ct: (F6j
_ Depleted Derld:,urlaa; 11 71
_ Rodox Doprass1one 1F8:
_ Vt<· ;ti Poos (F9)
Type ____________ _
Mlc.nn 0• ·dr0phytic ~-egecsbcn an:
we1lard hy,;i rolo!1',' n",JJ6t be pres.ant
1111lu•· tli~111thetl (II ;>"t1hlrJrn.'ll1r:
_ p1h (Inches).-.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::-.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::-________________ ~-------------------; Romar~
Hydrfc Soil Preunt? Ye5 o __ _

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology tnd1caLore.·
d; thee~ el tr 21 apply: SPcondar, 1•~•ta·~ ( or more -egu1red1 Surfa.co W;;1cr t,A 1, _ w~1Ar Mart<~ 10•: ,:Rlverlne1
HIg" VVaw Table (A21
S,1~.raMn (/lo.JJ
1 _ y•,. •~c 'Jl~'<. -;fl 1't (Nonrive,ina)
_ Sf-1,l"'enr l)P.pD!lts (B2) ,;No,1rl'terloo l
_ Dnfl Depos~ 1831 1Nonrlverlne)
~ Surface Soil Crack5 (801
_ lnunu;;1 11r V1$•h,. on Aeo· lm,r1wrv <87:,
_ •M ' SI, inP-c1 I c.111~ (RO\
F leld Observation&·
Surfa,:e 'Net.er Pre~er,,,
1 Na·e1 Table Prosont?
Saturation "-o&ent'l
r,nd;.(!es CB IIIBf\l Inn e
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
_ Salt Crus1 :Ei• t I
_ 810 C (:•~st 1t1iz:

Aquabc Invertebrates 181 :J)
_ llydrOQ<.- Sulfide :):],Jr rG 1)
_ Sedlrrent Ue,:as :s (1:12) tRlwrlne)
_ Dn4 Leo::>sIts 1!l-31 (RJvertne r
_ Ora~c1r;; Pattems1810)
_ Ox1<11,"" Rrvo~ph~ms aJ<l<'Q Liv n~ •hots \C3i _ [l')·-Sco1: n W:r't" T;;blt- :c:>1 _ I 'rl?!ena: ot RP.duOc<t 110n (C-4' _ Cray!l. h ElJlfll'IIS (CB) Recar· Iron "<8"u:t>~, r I lied So s -:eoi
_ Thin Muck Surra<:e : .... ,,
Olhnr {Expl,11n in Remarks'.•
:Jep1h trche,i _ ___ _
:)eo1h -,1r.-:: tEs, ____ _
Sat..ra:1on VreIble en Aerial magary (Ct!)
_ Snallow Aqu,t.i'tf 1031
_ F.C-C-N!:•.:ral - .,er O::i5i
:::ieo1h (Incne.sl ____ _ Wettmnd Hydrology Preunt? V No Oe&cnhe l(ec!Yded .Ja1a 1s·re,ar, gauge rr:introrrng wet, llcl1RI I> Ohl .. ,,,.,., .:,,.I11-.~t.l <J<•. :, I ·•uailahl" emarks
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Arid West Region
ProIec:,S,10: _ i)~ t _o __ ..,..,. _ ___________ C1tv,'::~--:v -~-~>_h_~-------- Samo 'Y.J Ca:u ------ Appuca-~·o,me· __,C....,o=~---'------------------------ ,,.,.,es•I9etc<;si· __ S----'''----"'-'--"_,_,__.,---"-'-"----- S.-:l ,n ·a·nnshlp Range .....:::..... __ ...:.....:....:..__..:::.c.:.. __ ....:, _ ____________ L:>;;,1I relief Iconcave, ::on
Subregion (-RR) 'kJ 0
37J'I,~- Long· J •_ [M " ____ _
sou I\ ap Jnll Nan.;: l J A i C ./1 f't ·1~1 aass1fiec11on ________ _ A1c- clir•1'l1rit.. i lh1d1 ultJH11: a::n1,c1llt111" ,111 l h~ si''f• lypu;;!: ro: 1•~' ·riu o1 . .w? ..,, •~ __ i-_ No ___ tlf • . ~x:> i~ ,, 111 R~rnar-.~ ·1 ~I u Voi:io:abo,· .Soil ,1, , ur • v1lri1lofl•1 'i1;.1r1t 1· ,:-,turbo::> Arr ''lonn.it CJ'(;uns·,anre.~· pt~r,11P Yes __ 1_ Ne __ _ .<\re Vege:a11or Soil f , or 1- ydrology nat..rally problerrab:? 1lf ·eeded exp1a- ;ir • snswo1s in Ro.,.1ar~ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, import.ant features, etc H .. ::-prry ir. V- dtlt,tr,, P,r:--"-1'""?
I I','C••~ S:>, Pre • ?
v~ \Ji,
v~ --- '-u vc,; V Nr..
1$ th~ Sarnpl;d Aro.i
wi1hin .1 Wlrlland'1 Vas No
'v'/r,l,~ll<! I yrhnlnyy Pri;9,;"1? _______________ ....._ Rcma•<s
VEGETATION - Use sclentJfic names of plants.

All!:olure Dr,ri,n~~1 , ,,CAI ,
:Y. Co Vil S,,ec:es? S1at.,
----------------------- ---- 2 ----------------------- ---- ----

J --------------------------- ----
4 -------------------------------
- ---------------------------- 2 ------------------------------- --------------------------- ---- ,. ------------------------------- :'i --------------------------- ---- - I ct.al CO'.':"
I
Oominanci> Test woi1C~heet:

Nun:,,. or Dorr nanl ~pea.es
That Are 09L Ftt.CW or "AC
Tota Nl,''Tlbc· or Cor11nan•
.IP.~ AO'olSS A St• la
Pct'CP.OI or Uorr ~nt Spec.es
That AIC Ci3L rAC'.'1•, 1JI ,,:::

Prevalence Index worllsheet
::)e_ s:: IBi
FACWspeetBE
FAC Et'. CI05
FACJspocc~
UPL speae~
Colurrn Tc1ils
5'
(Ai

2. (B.1
2 ~.:..e.;:..e:..:.~:...,.,.;,_,:..;,...:.,11.:,,;..,,.._-,--____ _!i.L _L __ ~ 3 ;,.:.._,=:=cc..:..:..--===..:..:c.:..:.i...:...._ ____ ___5_ ___ ~ Prnva once .-.iex = R•.:... '"-=-=="'= ' =2=0==:.._~ ~ -..:..-...:..-==:,,... ________________ ______ F_A_ c._ -.,..,H-yd.,..r-ot>'"'h,..ytic V11g9t.,tion l<>drc.,tors. ti ______ ~ ~ Ocmma,ca Taa1 ,s •50%
6 ______ ..f..E.Y Prev-a-e0cc lr-:ic• IS S'.i 0
d - ---~~------------------------
'r'VPOOY Yme ~;t- ,t1t1111 <1101 <:'JP _____ _
2 __________________ _
s ,\1,, ,v ~ ,rps or engineers
- MorJ:hciO[IICa. Adap:alon~ (Pio·, {• s...r,r.Ming
d 1a In • err.io·<& or or a separat ehco()
_ f'roblematc -l~'O'llphy:r. V..:qctal :1n' iEx1:la,,1J 1111N11. 1or~ ot ryonc sell a~d wet an:: h',"l•~~-~ rr11ii,J PICliCr1 i,c•,. !'. 1JIMult'.ed or problem&llG
HydrDl)hy1it
Vegetation
Present? No
1'.1hl W~!l-1 Verne- :!.C
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SOIL 3
S.t,nplin~_0_:o:::,m~=====--
Profile Oascrlptlon: !Describe lo the depth needed to docum~nl the Indicator or confirm the .i b&ence of i m:fic-1tor$.) Jcpl- 1.1acr x
Mche. 1 Color Cmms1
r - I 'J. _.!>~_'( __ _
_%_
C (
--'------ --------- -"---'--:?.;..,s_.z _ ___ __ b __ __ .v __ _____ -,..c...:c--=----------- ------- ---------
-----------------
----------------- e G=Cct1Ct!tilralh:m D=0c:ilotiOfl . ~M~Reduoed l\~61nx. <.:$•Covered n< r.o,v~:l S.ind G·a s '.ocat<lf' PL=Po•;; Lmrn 1;1=Ma1rP.

Hydric Soil lndicatOJs· (Applicable to all l.RRs, unless othcf'wrs.c notod I Indicators for Problematic Hydr1c Sells,- H1s10&0I iA 1 J
- Iii 'lie EP4POdon I A2)
_ Ola<:k f"sl·c iA3)
_ -fy'llroger Sul tde :AAJ
_.!:. S ratfied Lavon; (A.5'1 (LRR C;
_ 1 r.m 1/luck !A!il iLRR o., _ Deplelf!!l f,elo,v 11M~ Sur1:tCP. IA11) rrud< Oar< SurtacP. 1"121
3andv Mucky M H!l (S 11
_ Sondy G -~·od M.itrlX (S4)
Restrictive Layer (If present :

Tpe ,t,lt 1 I
_ sandy Rf!<Jo (Sci
St pp;;d l,1atrhr (S6i
loamv l,1ucky Mineral :1-1 ;,
_ I rir,n·v Gleyl'd r1a111~ 1F2\
_ L~ie1eo Mstrl (n:

Rede.: Gi.r~ SJrfaoe 1,t-61
_ l;)cplo ttd Ca Svoface iFT'l
_J('Rt,llo. Dt.i;~s ,:;..-!> •:"Bl
_ V~mal Pnni,; 1F'i1
1 C'T1 'vluc< ,,,,II) (LRR c,
2c,,Muc 1A10., rum B1
R~tl:>!;,:d Vur iC rF~a)
f(ed I 'al'>'!,,- Ma·er1aI ( fl 2J
0:he· , Explain ,n ~eMar1<91
Itrt1,c:1tJrs. o• l'1 •dropt,yU<: ,. et.u•i1111 , rcJ
't'IB!IB1'11 h11~:rotog~· mLl!ll be prP.9'!'
unlc~s disturtcd or prool8"1atIc
Dep:h ;·ocnes: __ I_O_ ::•_•-_- _- _- _- _- _-:._-_- _-_-_-=--------------- Hyd111: Soll Present? 'l'e9 No

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators ·
lnd1ca1on; 1m1nlrr Jm cf one
_ Sorfac:r. ':.'111er 1.A t)
_ "ilgh W'au,i I nble (J\2I
_ Sa:oret.o" iAJ)
V Wate- Marke. (Bl I NonrfVenneJ
_ .Scd,monl Dcoos1ts 182) l onrlver net
Scc:;,--,1,uy -.dIc.a~ors 2 <1
_ '-".'a:er l,1arks ,B1) (Riverine,
_ AirJI .. Crust (8f21 _ Si?n1rre 1 tle;c<i&rts :ti I 1Rlverlne.1 _ Aqwit : trM\r eb,.,te:, (813) On'l Oeoos'.:i; 163) :'Riverine) _ 1-tydro!}f!n Sul'i:1P Odor (G1) Or,HT1<1 Pa:lcm& ,;B 1 C• 0 a zed Rnt2ospt12res along living Root. :c:i\ _ Dry SP.:l!l:m Wattir T ,btt, ir.iI _ Ofli• '.JP.prl!I>'~ (n:n (Nonriv9'fit1e) _ Prcscnoo ol Aoduced ron (C-4, _ Crayllsh burrov'5 ,'Cl!) ~ .SUr'flD!': Soll Grncks f!tit _ Rte<);:nt Iron Rt:dui;Uon in riled Soils ;CG1 _ Sa1ura:ion Vieible on ~,ena, lo1ageri, (C9:• _ OIJMRhon \/ISO eon AertRI Irr .gery 1137! _ TIM ,.,11c~ S. (I oc (C71 _ Sra lll\'I AQu1tara (03 -L Wat.er s•:;1nP.11 1.-1.ve~; GI _ Olh•• fEJcplarn ,n R111T1ar s: "AC-Ne1.~ral e!1 (05.1 Field Observaliom, --- --- - -------'-------------==-------'---'------- S·.rfaoo Wa Pra ,1?
Vi/:1le-' Tabil.: Pru:;mil?
Roniarl<E .

US Army Corµ; a' E:~ ~rs
VoE No
YoE __ o __
Y"s __ Nn
Oepn 1mc:he&): ____ _
optn irnct1es;:
;)oplh f1n::hc&; Vl~tland HydrolOg)' f>1-e11ent? Ye!l v 0 Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning <
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
=>rcJect.iS-te __________________ C "y.'f..-.: 1nty _____ , _ s/ ,j Appllcam. me<: _________________________ _
nves1Igata-Is): --~--'-----'---~-------- SNI <m -uwrsh'l), ,a:-go .==..=c...e.!.:....:_:.__--==c....;___-=. _ __:_:_.:..::..:.= ',i~ da~sifli;a110t1 ________ _
A,~ r:1I11 1 Ir: I hytlrolnyl , thil; lino ?f >'Oilt? Ves (If"'°· eX!l<a in Rema1<& , A11, Vegc!ilh0!1 ~ Soll ~. :)' Hvr11 nlOIJy _ s1gmfica~ ty i;,s1url>:xl? Arc 'Ncrmai C.•cumstance:s· D'eson1? Yes~ \Jn i>.re veget.abon _ Soil_•_. or Hydrol::igy _I_ ns•ur;1, )' i:;roblerrattc'i any a.·swers 1n Rema rial. 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point loc.atlons, transocts, important featurH, etc.

H· oo•l)'tii; i/cgr,1,,tio,, Pnmmt?
II','(Jr; P1~r,nl?
·,Net and t-')ldro1ogy Pres ?
Yei __ i_ No __ _
Yes __ ~_ No __ _
~es /r No
h; the Sampled Area
within " Winlllnd?
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absclute :)am.~ nt lndlr.ato<
,Ploi size ----~ Cg ~ties Sta,ue
---------
1; ------
----------
--------- • lolal Cover
S;mllo,1/Sbtib SI llll/0: /Plal s:ze
----------
12 ---------- 3 ---------- .. ---------- a --- --- = TaislCover t-Je11> .Stu1t111n

3.Q_ __ Y _ I 1\,-.J
2 < r /J.J.1..t1. --------- 3
,. .[ L>jJ

5. 6.
i
ti
----7,c ----------------:------- ------~
----~
_----"'-L,...,__......,<r'--0-'-.-<..-"'-'----"---'----== == . e ~ ,a1al Cover 'N!l.· !!!I V10!! !Stra1um (► 'lcts.ze
---------------------
Dominance j!5t work.sh~t:

Nurnr.e- or DolTll,-.s..~t Specas
"hat Are 06L, FAC'N nr FAC
Tota N=b~r of Oc,,tilnant
le. i>.anss AU St•c1a
P~e.P.nl or c;::1-,,1r-!'J1 Speciee
net Are O5L FACW, !Jf ,\C;
Prewa~ce Index wort<.&h"t;
T01al ¾ CoV!;j gf Mbl•lptycy
OB r,i:e:10~ t t
FA.CW:spoc;: i( 2 -
FAC, fl• \'.J=
FACU peo!!s X 4 =
IJPL ,p.;r,l'!S x5=
COIUI r o1s1s· IA:

Hydrophytl: Veg-e,tallon lndlcaton; ,
Dcminil1ct' Te. 1 ~ >50'!1.
_ Pri,.,- ten 1110e.i Is ss.o·
:Al
101
1A1B)
(B)
MuohciOIII" lld i:;1scon! 1 (Pro~e !Upporflng
- a91s In ~omarl< or ~ a separate sheet)
_ Prablamahc; i rophyi : V;,ge1BV ' (Explair·1
lrdlca1ors ,r ·vdrtt: 011 l!llll ,vet&IY.l h)-arclony mu. 1 be pres;,...nt. J ess d1st..,1>e,-J or probleme11c
2 ------------------,__ ___ ----------
% Baro G,o,.,11d n I· ,rn s1rm11m ____ _
qer,,ar1<s
-~ AmTy corps of Englnean;
___ = Tolill Co111:r
'll. Cove- of !:·cue Crus
Hyaropttytlc
Vagal.'llion
Present? Yc,-s l\lo __
Arid We!lt - Varno• 2.0
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SOIL c;--=--__,..--:,,--,-..,.,----,--,--,-- ~! n,; Po'" . -==L=::/==:::_, r= Oascriptior,, (Dncrtbe to lhe de!)t:11 needed to dccumam tho ir>di<"..otQr or c;onfinn the ;absancc of Indicators.) t,pt, ~atnx RMb• reat 1 M
(1nchi!eI Color t<nol. Jl QI&' _jL_ ~ _l&L
(' 1
-----------------
------- ---------
-----------------
---------------- ' ype C•t.;oncentr1111on [J 1Jeple11cr. Rfl'•l~educed \IIAlrlX c. ~CfnlP.fP.11 (11 C'!_l'fh:d _:_ rd Gra l<lS l oe; IIOI' ~Par!' I 1nrn9 •11-Mamx Mydric Soil lndic11t0<s: (Applic.,bl to 11U LRR , unlos11 oth11,wise note<I,) lndlc.itor5 for Prob'9matlc MydflC Sous' _ Ills! , 1)1 1/1'1 J _ ···,n(ly Redo (55) I en Muc=- ( A9) (LIi R C) _ Hl~llr. r~pel'.10(' /A2)
_ !$,eek --ilsoc tA3)
_ H:,-a ogen Sulfide 1M)
_I/_ S1ratificr1 l'fV r1, {A.'i) ILRR C)
_ '~'11 Mua,: iA9) ! LRR D1
_ Sltlpped MNIIIK fsi5!
_ Loamy 1/lud(y l,11neral , r 11
loamy Gloye:l M idnx (=2 )
. 11!1 .. M hlx (r11
_ ?c:nWJJl! 1A10t(LRRBI
_ Re<lu:eo Ver.re (f-- 11.\J
_ Red Pare-,; t.la1or,3I :TF2:
_ Ott, ,F•pl~ln In Rf.rt ~,
_ Deple ed BelOYI !)arlc Sur1a<:e (A 111
_ Thrclt Dari< Surace (A12,,
_ Reaox Da11e s.Jrtace r~s:, Deo,ell!O Da•~ S....-fete 1Fr· Rt.'0:>x :Jc:>i-cs~ o·s <=e1
_ Ve111:rl Pool:; IF9)
1' rdl::a 1cn; cf "IVO'OOhY: vegetation anc
Sa!Y1v Muc~ ~inoral rs, I we11ar,c hvdrolcqv "''Jl>l prr;.<-~nl. _ s,ui1y Gleyeo M 1r1 (&ol) uni dis •Detl or probtem&.11c.

Rv$trictivv ~ye, (if p,..;;;,t),--------------------~
Ty· I -=c..:•------- :,eptr 11nc1c:;J /0 Hydri~ Soll Prasanl'1 Yu 0 _J

HYDROLOGY
I Wetland Hydrology lndlcatora:
?rrnal)' .ndrqator& (rolornum OU!O!le.trn..._o..,u ... ,r:t:<1..,.,..._..ch...,e<>;:k.,_.a.,.H_.H;'"'•;i,.:..,il .. P"'Pl ... v ... I __________ _ _ Surface Water(A 1 i Salt Cru1;1 {B 1 J
Sqcgqq,,:;v tr 9,c.1'.IY"': :2 or More rE>auiredL
','i/at(!I Mark (R ·) (R lverlne)
_ t-sigh 'Nelcr I llb,e (A2\ Biot,; c~jSI (B 12:,
Satural:t.>1 (A3) _ AJ1ufllle 1, •r.ll~ltWP.., ifl 13)
-e nirtn\ nepo!t.ll m21 RJ\lertne)
_ :Jrrn er,os.1& r!:l.:li {~tverlna)
'Nalnr Mi!lils (91) [Nonriverinel _ Hyrlr~e:n Sultde Oi:m (C 1 r _ ralnage Patterns (B 1 Ol _ -edlmi,11I n ,t~ (R2) :Nonrlverlne1 _ UXla:zea fi•ao~ res e.,on; Lllf',1 I-loots !LJl _ '.)ry-Season W;,I T;it: (C:2I _ Dr Oeposrts (93) (Nonrlll1!rlneJ Presaioc of Rc<Jw::&l lrcn re~) _ -,·1vn~I, R111ro, (CB) _..!::. :iu~aoe Soll Crack& '261 Acco Iron Rcduc:ror in Tihoo Soils rco SalurR'.lon Vis.tile on ;.er magory ,'.CO\ i; 111 r.1ucx Svrfaai f::;T, _ - . 111,~ Aq ;ar:l (iJ:!I Ott• r :Expl~ln Rcrrar1m -1\C-Ne-,nra lest tD~)
_ 11unaet1Y1 Vls.'ble er Aenel Imagery (87)
_ WBte<-Slsined Leaves /89) ---------f
Fl9ld Ob5arv•tions:

Sirliloo Wat Prr.~t? Ye! __ No __ c,_ Uep11 tlnctle&): ____ _ \1\1/,l Tahir. Ptr<$P.nl7 Yea __ No--~- Dept1 linche&; . ____ _ sa1I,rnI rm Pre11enr; Ye& __ No --~- Dept, fm::hos): Walland Hydrology Prasent'1 Yes No -'1 '"1Cluder, ca ill3ry ij(?; __________ ..,,----~---~--....J"--~-~~----- Describa Recorded Oat;, istr am 93,ugP. monr:orlng well aP"llil photo.s. previous lnspecttons) If a\•alleble ,)S /.v•11v Cnrps ot 1:ng1neer& And Wi;:sl -Ver1,1on 2 11 Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning References:

Army Corp of Engineers. 2021. State of California Wetland Plant List.

Army Corp of Engineers. 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Definition.

California Water Board on line at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/wrapp/dredge_and_fill_draft_ procedures_fact_sheet_022519_update.pdf
Delineation Manual: Aird West Region. ACOE Research and Development Center. 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Environmental Protection Agency: Vernal pool description. 2024. On line at:
https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/vernal-pools
Sackett vs EPA. 2023 Supreme Court Ruling redefining Waters of the United States.

USDA. 1974. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Shasta County, California Water Boards. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. On line at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf Wildland Resource Managers. 2022. Zinco Property Biological Review.

Prepared for Zinco Holdings, LLC, Redding, California
17 Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning MND Attachment
C
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Packet Pg. 969
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigation Monitoring Program, S-2022-02416, RZ-2024-00156 -1- March 20, 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

ZINCO SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION S-2022-02416
REZONING APPLICATION RZ-2024-00156

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for Zinco Subdivision. The MMP includes a brief discussion of the legal basis for and 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. 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 Zinco Subdivision. 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. 970 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigation Monitoring Program, S-2022-02416, RZ-2024-00156 -2- March 20, 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING TABLE
The Mitigation Monitoring Table identifies the mitigation measures proposed for Zinco Subdivision. These mitigation measures are reproduced from the Initial Study and conditions of approval for the project. The tables have the following columns:

Mitigation Measure: Lists the mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study for a specific impact, along with the number for each measure as enumerated in the Initial Study.

Timing: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measure will be completed.

Agency/Department Consultation: References the City department or any other public agency with which coordination is required to satisfy the identified mitigation measure.

Verification: Spaces to be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to a specific mitigation measure.

NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS
Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures 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 conduct an investigation 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 complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue.

Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Mitigation Monitoring Program, S-2022-02416, RZ-2024-00156 -3- March 20, 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING TABLE

FOR THE ZINCO SUBDIVISION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and
Initials)
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: The applicant shall have a pre-construction rare plant survey of the proposed disturbance area or other project features that may impact special status species of the project site conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate survey window (blooming period) for rare and endangered plants that have the potential to occur within the project site if such a survey has not been provided to the City. Surveys shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. If present, special status plant species plant populations will be flagged and, if possible, avoided during construction. If the population cannot be avoided during construction, a plan will be developed for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) which may include transplanting the plant population, compensation, or other measures established by that agency.

At time of
development
Public Works,
Planning
MM-BIO-2: If feasible, vegetation removal and/or construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation removal and/or construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than seven (7) days before vegetation removal or construction activities begin. If an active nest is found, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by the qualified biologist. The survey shall be provided to the CDFW.

If construction activities cease for a period greater than seven (7) days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

At time of
development
Public Works,
Planning
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision MND Attachment
D
Agency Comments
Packet Pg. 973
Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Shast Chapter CNPS
P.O. Box 990194
Redding, CA 96099-0194
May 1, 2025
City of Redding
Planning division
Attn: Danny Castro, Associate Planner
Redding Planning Department
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, Ca 96001
Submitted via email to: [email protected]
Re: Shasta Chapter, California Native Plant Society Comments on Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Castro:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zinco Subdivision and Rezoning. The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Shasta Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) which is a non-profit environmental organization with over 13,000 members in 36 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plants and their natural habitats, today and into the future, through science, education, stewardship, gardening, and advocacy.

The Environmental Initial Study (IS) for this project did not include sufficient information to disclose the baseline conditions of the project site, and the determination that this project will have impacts that would be less than significant with the proposed mitigation was made based on an incomplete and potentially inaccurate portrayal of the biological resources present on the project site.

The Pre-Survey review should have included a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPS Rare Plant Inventory queries of the Redding, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle as well as all eight (8) adjacent quadrangles to develop a list of species with the potential to occur, given the presence of habitat on the project site. The fact that there are no recorded occurrences of a taxa within a certain distance of the project site does not rule out the potential to occur, nor does being outside of the known elevation range of a species; range expansions and the discovery undocumented occurrences are not uncommon.

There is also the possibility that an undocumented species may be present on the project site. For these reasons surveys sufficient to determine all species present on the project site are essential to determining the significance of potential impacts. A single survey during a time of year when very few annual or perennial species would have been present, let alone identifiable to a level Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning CNPS Comments on Zinco Project 2
necessary to determine rarity, is unacceptable. The qualifications of biologists were not disclosed and transects of 15 to 50 feet would not be effective at identifying any diminutive species that could easily be obscured by invasive grasses that were shown to be present on the site, even during a time of year that they may have been detectable. The plant surveys should be conducted at the appropriate times of year to accurately assess the botanical resources present on the project site.

The proposed mitigation measures should include sufficient detail to ensure that any special species impacted by project activities would not lead to net loss of occurrences or habitat.

Mitigation measure BIO-1 should be amended to require that pre-construction surveys occur following the 2021 update to the 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (Protocols), and not allow previous surveys that have been submitted to the city to be admissible. The mitigation measure should emphasize avoidance of special status species over any form of compensatory mitigation.

If sensitive species are observed, mitigation measures should be developed for each species documented during appropriately timed surveys conducted prior to project approval and appropriately timed preconstruction surveys. Efforts to transplant or recreate special status populations have been shown to be largely infective, a review of mitigation efforts to transplant or recreate populations of special status species shows that these are only successful in 8% of efforts1.

Based on the lack of substantial supporting evidence we feel that the MND should be declined and that additional surveys be performed using an appropriate list of target species at an appropriate time of year, and that mitigation measures be updated to include species specific mitigation for any special status taxa found during these additional surveys or during preconstruction surveys, and that these measures include explicit performance standards, and explicit maintenance and monitoring schedules. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and please contact me if you have any questions.

Below are the CDFW protocols for biological surveys that have not been followed.

Underlined portions particularly apply to the Biological Survey or plants.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DATE: March 20, 2018
Survey Extent
1 Fiedler, P.L., 1991. Mitigation-related Transplantation, Relocation and Reintroduction Projects Involving Endangered and Threatened, and Rare Plant Species in California, Final Report. California. Department of Fish & Game. Endangered Plant Program.

Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning CNPS Comments on Zinco Project 3

Botanical field surveys should be comprehensive over the entire project area, including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Adjoining properties should also be surveyed where direct or indirect project effects could occur, such as those from fuel modification, herbicide application, invasive species, and altered hydrology. Surveys restricted to known locations of special status plants may not identify all special status plants and sensitive natural communities present, and therefore do not provide a sufficient level of information to determine potential impacts.

Applicant did not do this.

Timing and Number of Visits
Conduct botanical field surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting. Space botanical field survey visits throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist in the project area. This usually involves multiple visits to the project area (e.g., in early, mid, and late-season) to capture the floristic diversity at a level necessary to determine if special status plants are present. The timing and number of visits necessary to determine if special status plants are present is determined by geographic location, the natural communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s) in which botanical field surveys are conducted. Applicant did not do the above requirements.

Detailed description of survey methodology and results
• Names and qualifications of botanical field surveyor(s); • Dates of botanical field surveys (indicating the botanical field surveyor(s) that surveyed each area on each survey date), and total person-hours spent; • A discussion of the survey preparation methodology;
• A list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to occur in the region; Applicant did not do any of the above.

In 2024, the Planning Department accepted a botanical survey from Wildland Resource Manager which listed two special status plants: the nine-awned pappus grass (Enneapogon desvauxii), California Rare Plant Rank 2B.2) and hairy erioneuron (Erioneuron pilosum), CRPR 2B.3).” From a SEA comment letter of May 9, 2024 (attached) and now the Planning Department is accepting a substandard biological survey from Vestra that did not do a survey for plants nor list the above plants. Thus, by only doing a preconstruction botanical survey, it will deny our organization and any other citizen the opportunity to comment as the project will already be approved.

Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning CNPS Comments on Zinco Project 4
The California Environmental Quality Act was enacted to protect our environment and to allow citizen input and comment regarding all aspects of the projects under review. If the public or reviewing agencies believe that the law is not being followed, they have the option of taking the Lead Agency to court for legal review of the Lead Agency's processes and determinations. In this case, CEQA is not being followed if the City of Redding accepts the inadequate biological survey that was submitted by the project applicant. If the City were to approve the project based on this inadequate biological survey, simply asking that the applicant conduct a better survey prior to construction, our organization would be denied any opportunity to respond if we felt the subsequent survey was unacceptable. This would prohibit our organization from commenting on the adequacy of the biological survey as the project would already have been approved and is an evasion of CEQA requirements. It would deny our organization our rights under CEQA.

Please note: The Highland Plains Shooting Range project in Millville Plains was defeated in Shasta County Superior Court based in part on similar deficiencies in a biological survey completed for that project. The deficient biological study was cited by Judge Benjamin Hanna in Shasta County Superior Court Ruling on March 11, 2025, Anderson/Millville Residents vs. County of Shasta, #23CV-0203713. Reference to the improper biological review is at the top of page six and references a comment letter I wrote and submitted for Shasta Environmental Alliance.

In conclusion, the Vestra biological survey failed to meet CEQA and CDFW protocols in many aspects, merely listing 20 plants observed on one single solitary visit. The City should require the applicant to submit a botanical survey under CDFW protocols.

Sincerely,
David Ledger
Conservation Chair
California Native Plant Society, Shasta Chapter
[email protected]
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning MND Attachment E
Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning 1 Response to Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Subdivision Map S-2022-02416 and Rezoning RZ-2024-00156, Zinco Subdivision
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State guidelines, the following responses address the issues raised in the attached comment letters. Comments received on the public draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) did 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
Letter submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):

Crotch’s Bumble Bee. CDFW commented that Crotch’s bumble bee is protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), even if only temporarily as a candidate species, and needs to be addressed with avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs).

The circulated MND did not contain any AMMs for the bee. While it is temporarily afforded protection under CESA, Crotch’s bumble bee is still not technically a listed species under CESA.

Therefore, adding a condition to the conditions of approval that requires preconstruction bumble bee surveys to be done in accordance with CDFW guidelines should be sufficient for avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Such a condition has been added to the Draft Conditions of Approval. As long as protection measures for this non-listed species are in place, formal mitigation measures in the context of an MND need not apply.

Protection of Nesting Birds and Bats. CDFW writes that the mitigation measure in the ISMND for nesting birds does not prioritize avoidance and is thus inadequate. They also write that bats other than the considered Townsend’s big-eared bat could find the project site suitable for roosting.

The mitigation measure utilized in the ISMND for nesting birds contains virtually the same clause about prioritizing vegetation removal in the off season (when birds are not typically nesting) as CDFW’s suggested language. The suggested language does not significantly differ from the language already included in the mitigation measure. While there would be no significant impacts to special status bats, a condition regarding the consideration of bats is included in the draft conditions of approval. Therefore, although not necessary for CEQA, the City has included an avoidance and minimization measure for impact to bats.

Oak Woodland. CDFW states that the ISMND does not offer AMMs for the permanent removal of blue oak woodland from a CEQA level of significance perspective and that the loss of habitat type is not adequately addressed.

Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SDP-2023-00085 & RZ-2024-00156/Canby Apartments
Response to Comments on Draft MND
2 The General Plan EIR recognized that impacts to the loss of woodland is a significant and unavoidable impact due to the future growth expected to occur in the City over the next twenty years. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations were approved and adopted to that effect by the Redding City Council on March 26, 2024. Regardless, preserving woodlands within the City and its sphere of influence have been taken into consideration at the General Plan level. There are approximately 17 square miles of open space within the City’s planned “growth areas,” including over 8,000 acres within the City limits, primarily containing oak woodland habitat. Much of this area is preserved with restrictions on slope and stream side development, and over 4,600 acres are protected through open space zoning and/or private open space easements.

Letter submitted by the Shasta Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS):

Deficiencies in the biological resources assessment. The letter states that the biological report should have done California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPS Rare Plant Inventory queries of the Redding USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle as well as all eight adjacent quadrangles for occurrences of special status species. It also says that the Vestra study does not survey for plants nor list two special-status species plants identified in the previous assessment done by Wildland Resource Managers.

Section 4.1 of the Biological Resource Assessment completed by Vestra explains that all nine quadrangles referenced above were included in their review of special-status plant and animal species and sensitive habitats that have the potential to occur within the survey area.

The comment criticizes the Vestra report for not surveying for plants. Not only did the report survey for plants but it suggested avoidance and minimization measures for three special-status species of plants. While making oral public comments at the April 2024 hearing for this project, a representative for CNPS criticized the qualifications of the biologist from Wildland Resource Managers for identifying Enneapagan desvauyii and Erioneuron pilosum. They stated that those plants would have no likelihood for occurrence on the site. That the revised report did not identify those plants onsite does not seem unreasonable or unexpected.

Mitigation Measures. CNPS comments that proposed mitigation measures should include sufficient detail to ensure that any special-status species impacted by the project would not lead to a net loss of occurrences or habitat. The MND should be declined per CNPS, and additional surveys performed using an appropriate list of target species at an appropriate time of year.

There is no City policy or significance threshold that requires no net loss of a special-status species occurrences or habitat. The proposed mitigation measures consider the impacts to special-status species and require coordination with CDFW to address those impacts if the special-status species are found during protocol level pre-construction surveys.

Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning SDP-2023-00085 & RZ-2024-00156/Canby Apartments
Response to Comments on Draft MND
3 Letter submitted by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), continued:

Mitigation Measures. “Mitigation measure BIO-1 should be amended to require that preconstruction surveys occur following the 2021 update to the 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (Protocols), and not allow previous surveys that have been submitted to the city to be admissible.” MM-BIO-1 requires that pre-construction surveys “shall be done in accordance with the most current version of California Native Plant Society’s Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. These required surveys will be new surveys done prior to construction. The concerns of this comment are built into the mitigation measure already.

Deny the MND. “Based on the lack of substantial supporting evidence we feel that the MND should be declined and that additional surveys be performed using an appropriate list of target species at an appropriate time of year, and that mitigation measures be updated to include species specific mitigation for any special status taxa found during these additional surveys or during preconstruction surveys, and that these measures include explicit performance standards, and explicit maintenance and monitoring schedules.”
The Vestra BRA used an appropriate list of target species aggregated from multiple sources, including a nine-quadrangle inquiry from CNDDB and CNPS databases. The report recommends protocol level pre-construction surveys for all identified special status species that could not be ruled out as having the potential to occur onsite. The mitigation measures, included in the conditions of approval, require that CDFW be consulted for any special-status species found during those additional pre-construction surveys to ensure that any applicable State performance standards, maintenance, and monitoring are implemented. The Vestra report is adequate and staff recommends adoption of the draft MND.

Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: ^Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: ^Tentative Map - Cover Sheet/Grading, Drainage, & Utilities/Trees (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: ^Tentative Map - Cover Sheet/Grading, Drainage, & Utilities/Trees (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: ^Tentative Map - Cover Sheet/Grading, Drainage, & Utilities/Trees (6.3--Subdivision Application S-2022-02416 & Rezoning