CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 6, 2024
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
February 6, 2024
6:00 P.M.
Shasta Lake City Council Chambers
4488 Red Bluff Street Shasta Lake, CA 96019
Mayor: Janice Powell
Vice Mayor: Tena Eisenbeisz
Council Members: Justin Jones, Pamelyn Morgan, Greg Watkins
OTHER WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING
• Watch a livestream of the meeting online or view the recording any time after the meeting concludes at the following: cityofshastalake.org/meetings • Submit public comment electronically before the meeting to:
[email protected]. Public comment by email will be read into the record during consideration of the item the comment addresses. Each public comment will be limited to three minutes of reading. Include the item number you are commenting on in the subject line of the email. Once the vote has taken place on an item, no additional public comments will beaccepted.
• Submit public comment by mail addressed to City Clerk, City of Shasta Lake, PO Box 777, Shasta Lake, CA 96019. Mailed comments must be received one day prior to the meeting to be included.
1.0 CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Call to order (please place electronic devices on silent)
1.2 Statement for the record of Council Members present or absent
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Invocation
2.0 AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS:
2.1 None
3.0 PRESENTATIONS:
3.1 None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 6, 2024
4.0 COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:
4.1 Sheriff Michael Johnson presentation on Senate Bill No. 2 – California CCW
4.2 Shasta Lake Fire Protection District – Quarterly Report
4.3 Shasta Lake Fire Protection District presentation on Public Protection Classification ISO Report (January 2024, effective May 1, 2024)
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT:
This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment. Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. Speaker forms are available from the City Clerk, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, on the City’s website, or at the back of the meeting hall. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven copies. Pursuant to The Brown Act, the City Council cannot take action on Public Comment Items.
6.0 CONSENT AGENDA:
The items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine business and will be voted on together by one motion unless a Council Member requests a specific item to be removed and discussed separately.
6.1 Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2024. (pg.35)
6.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 16, 2024. (pg.37)
6.3 Payrolls: (pg.41)
PE 1/20/2024 PD 1/26/2024 $161,353.89
6.4 Checks, E-payments, and wires: (pg.43)
12/20/2023 $779,392.26
12/20/2023 $127,235.56
1/04/2024 $2,143,564.30
1/11/2024 $433,842.77
6.5 Second reading of an Ordinance approving the addition of Section 10.36.230, “Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles within the Public Right of Way,” to the Shasta Lake Municipal Code. (pg.61)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 6, 2024
6.6 Discussion and possible action to approve a resolution accepting the City’s Conflict of Interest Code at the conclusion of its Biennial Review Process. (pg.67)
7.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 None
8.0 REGULAR AGENDA:
8.1 Discussion and possible action to approve a resolution accepting the findings of the Summit City Wastewater Feasibility Study (SCWWFS) and direct staff to pursue grant opportunities to implement the Alternative 3 project as presented in the SCWWFS. (pg.77)
8.2 Discussion and possible action to approve a resolution authorizing an application to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for acceptance into the Fire Risk Reduction Community List. (pg.85)
8.3 Discussion and possible action to approve a resolution authorizing an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for Prohousing Designation. (pg.97)
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS:
10.0 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:
This is the time set aside for Council Members, who may so desire, to give brief comments or reports concerning City matters. The City Council may not enter into discussion on matters reported. Statements made by individual Council Members should not be interpreted as a statement of the City Council. The City Council only takes action by majority vote. • Brief reports by members of the Council regarding correspondence, events and/or meetings attended, and upcoming meetings/events.
• Suggestions/motions for future agenda items.
• In compliance with Assembly Bill 1234, Council will report on attendance at conferences/meetings/events where expenses are reimbursed by the City.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meetings are broadcast on the Wednesday following the meeting at 6:00 PM and the following Friday at 2:00 PM on Charter Channel 181. Videos of meetings are also available through the City website: www.cityofshastalake.org In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call (530) 275-7407. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting is requested to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). 4 Shasta Lake Fire Protection District
4126 Ashby Ct., Shasta Lake, CA 96019 (530) 275-7474 Fax (530) 275-6502 www.shastalakefpd.org
PREVENTION OFFICER REPORT
Well would Like to think 2023 was a good productive year. As we move into 2024 looking forward to the continued growth. In 2023, I completed 241.5 hours of state certified training. Weed Abatement: For 2023, a total 58 notices were sent out. Put on the Crush the Brush event.
Youth Program: For 2023, I was able to facilitate multiple events at our local schools. The district participated in the End of the Year school function’s at Grand Oaks Elementary, Shasta Lake School and Gateway Head Start. Participated in the Career Fair at Central Valley High School. Also, being part of the Shasta County Prevention Officers Association was able to bring that group to Shasta Lake School for Fire Prevention Week. Business Inspections: Business Inspections were completed and will be an annual inspection.
Working on getting pre-plans current.
Fires: The District has responded to 68 fires from January – December 2023. • 14 Vegetation Fires
• 14 Structure Fires
• 6 Vehicle Fires
• 34 Illegal Burn Piles
Respectfully Submitted,
Devin Owens
Devin M. Owens
Fire Marshal/ Prevention Officer
5 6
1000 Bishops Gate Blv. Ste 300
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-5404
t1.800.444.4554 Opt.2
f1.800.777.3929
Through ongoing research and loss experience analysis, we identified additional differentiation in fire loss experience within our PPC program, which resulted in the revised classifications. We based the differing fire loss experience on the fire suppression capabilities of each community. The new classifications will improve the predictive value for insurers while benefiting both commercial and residential property owners. We’ve published the new classifications as “X” and “Y” — formerly the “9” and “8B” portion of the split classification, respectively. For example:
• A community currently graded as a split 6/9 classification will now be a split 6/6X classification; with the “6X” denoting what was formerly classified as “9.” • Similarly, a community currently graded as a split 6/8B classification will now be a split 6/6Y classification, the “6Y” denoting what was formerly classified as “8B.” • Communities graded with single “9” or “8B” classifications will remain intact.
We wish to thank you and Mr. Roger Moses for your cooperation during our recent Public Protection Classification (PPC) survey. ISO has completed its analysis of the structural fire suppression delivery system provided in your community. The resulting classification is indicated above.
Dear Mr. Jessica Lugo,
Each insurance company independently determines the premiums it charges its policyholders. The way an insurer uses ISO’s information on public fire protection may depend on several things – the company’s fire-loss experience, ratemaking methodology, underwriting guidelines, and its marketing strategy.
If you would like to know more about your community’s PPC classification, or if you would like to learn about the potential effect of proposed changes to your fire suppression delivery system, please call us at the phone number listed below.
ISO’s Public Protection Classification Program (PPC) plays an important role in the underwriting process at insurance companies. In fact, most U.S. insurers – including the largest ones – use PPC information as part of their decision- making when deciding what business to write, coverage’s to offer or prices to charge for personal or commercial property insurance.
January 22, 2024
RE: Shasta Lake Fpsa, Shasta County, California (N)
Mr. Jessica Lugo, City Manager
Shasta Lake FPSA
4477 Main St.
Shasta Lake, California, 96019
Public Protection Classification: 03/3Y
Effective Date: May 01, 2024
7 Sincerely,
cc:
• Communities graded with single “9” or “8B” classifications will remain intact. • Properties over 5 road miles from a recognized fire station would receive a class 10.
PPC is important to communities and fire departments as well. Communities whose PPC improves may get lower insurance prices. PPC also provides fire departments with a valuable benchmark, and is used by many departments as a valuable tool when planning, budgeting and justifying fire protection improvements.
Alex Shubert
Mr. Roger Moses, Chief, Shasta Lake Fire Department
Mr. William Bond, Manager, Shasta Lake, City of
If you have any questions about your classification, please let us know.
Alex Shubert
ISO is the leading supplier of data and analytics for the property/casualty insurance industry. Most insurers use PPC classifications for underwriting and calculating premiums for residential, commercial and industrial properties. The PPC program is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive structural fire suppression delivery system program. It is not for purposes of determining compliance with any state or local law, nor is it for making loss prevention or life safety recommendations.
Manager -National Processing Center
ISO appreciates the high level of cooperation extended by local officials during the entire PPC survey process. The community protection baseline information gathered by ISO is an essential foundation upon which determination of the relative level of fire protection is made using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule.
The classification is a direct result of the information gathered, and is dependent on the resource levels devoted to fire protection in existence at the time of survey. Material changes in those resources that occur after the survey is completed may affect the classification. Although ISO maintains a pro-active process to keep baseline information as current as possible, in the event of changes please call us at 1-800-444-4554, option 2 to expedite the update activity.
Chief Sean Johnson, Communications Manager, Calfire Shasta Trinity Unit ECC Ms. Chris Smyrnos, Communications Supervisor, ShasCom 9-1-1 8 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Public Protection Classification
(PPC®)
Summary Report
Shasta Lake FPSA
California (N)
Prepared by
Insurance Services Office, Inc.
1000 Bishops Gate Blvd., Ste. 300
P.O. Box 5404
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054-5404
1-800-444-4554
Report Created January 2024
Effective May 1, 2024
9 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Background Information
Introduction
ISO collects and evaluates information from communities in the United States on their structure fire suppression capabilities. The data is analyzed using our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then a Public Protection Classification (PPC©) grade is assigned to the community.
The surveys are conducted whenever it appears that there is a possibility of a PPC change. As such, the PPC program provides important, up-to-date information about fire protection services throughout the country.
The FSRS recognizes fire protection features only as they relate to suppression of first alarm structure fires. In many communities, fire suppression may be only a small part of the fire department's overall responsibility. ISO recognizes the dynamic and comprehensive duties of a community's fire service, and understands the complex decisions a community must make in planning and delivering emergency services. However, in developing a community’s PPC grade, only features related to reducing property losses from structural fires are evaluated.
Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents and life safety are not considered in this evaluation.
The PPC program evaluates the fire protection for small to average size buildings. Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual PPC grade.
A community's investment in fire mitigation is a proven and reliable predictor of future fire losses. Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection – as measured by the PPC program – and low fire losses. So, insurance companies use PPC information for marketing, underwriting, and to help establish fair premiums for homeowners and commercial fire insurance. In general, the price of fire insurance in a community with a good PPC grade is substantially lower than in a community with a poor PPC grade, assuming all other factors are equal.
ISO is an independent company that serves insurance companies, communities, fire departments, insurance regulators, and others by providing information about risk. ISO's expert staff collects information about municipal fire suppression efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data and assigns a PPC grade – a number from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents an exemplary fire suppression program, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.
ISO's PPC program evaluates communities according to a uniform set of criteria, incorporating nationally recognized standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and the American Water Works Association. A community's PPC grade depends on:
Needed Fire Flows, which are representative building locations used to determine the theoretical amount of water necessary for fire suppression purposes. Emergency Communications, including emergency reporting, telecommunicators, and dispatching systems.
Fire Department, including equipment, staffing, training, geographic distribution of fire companies, operational considerations, and community risk reduction. Water Supply, including inspection and flow testing of hydrants, alternative water supply operations, and a careful evaluation of the amount of available water compared with the amount needed to suppress fires up to 3,500 gpm. 10 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Data Collection and Analysis
ISO has evaluated and classified over 39,000 fire protection areas across the United States using its FSRS. A combination of meetings between trained ISO field representatives and the dispatch center coordinator, community fire official, and water superintendent is used in conjunction with a comprehensive questionnaire to collect the data necessary to determine the PPC grade. In order for a community to obtain a grade better than a Class 9, three elements of fire suppression features are reviewed. These three elements are Emergency Communications, Fire Department, and Water Supply.
A review of the Emergency Communications accounts for 10% of the total classification. This section is weighted at 10 points, as follows:
Emergency Reporting 3 points
Telecommunicators 4 points
Dispatch Circuits 3 points
A review of the Fire Department accounts for 50% of the total classification. ISO focuses on a fire department's first alarm response and initial attack to minimize potential loss. The fire department section is weighted at 50 points, as follows:
Engine Companies 6 points
Reserve Pumpers 0.5 points
Pump Capacity 3 points
Ladder/Service Companies 4 points
Reserve Ladder/Service Trucks 0.5 points
Deployment Analysis 10 points
Company Personnel 15 points
Training 9 points
Operational considerations 2 points
Community Risk Reduction 5.5 points (in addition to the 50 points above) A review of the Water Supply system accounts for 40% of the total classification. ISO reviews the water supply a community uses to determine the adequacy for fire suppression purposes.
The water supply system is weighted at 40 points, as follows:
Credit for Supply System 30 points
Hydrant Size, Type & Installation 3 points
Inspection & Flow Testing of Hydrants 7 points
11 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
There is one additional factor considered in calculating the final score – Divergence.
Even the best fire department will be less than fully effective if it has an inadequate water supply. Similarly, even a superior water supply will be less than fully effective if the fire department lacks the equipment or personnel to use the water. The FSRS score is subject to modification by a divergence factor, which recognizes disparity between the effectiveness of the fire department and the water supply.
The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation.
PPC Grade
The PPC grade assigned to the community will depend on the community's score on a 100-point scale:
PPC Points
1 90.00 or more
2 80.00 to 89.99
3 70.00 to 79.99
4 60.00 to 69.99
5 50.00 to 59.99
6 40.00 to 49.99
7 30.00 to 39.99
8 20.00 to 29.99
9 10.00 to 19.99
10 0.00 to 9.99
The classification numbers are interpreted as follows:
Class 1 through (and including) Class 8 represents a fire suppression system that includes an FSRS creditable dispatch center, fire department, and water supply. Class 8B is a special classification that recognizes a superior level of fire protection in otherwise Class 9 areas. It is designed to represent a fire protection delivery system that is superior except for a lack of a water supply system capable of the minimum FSRS fire flow criteria of 250 gpm for 2 hours. Class 9 is a fire suppression system that includes a creditable dispatch center, fire department but no FSRS creditable water supply.
Class 10 does not meet minimum FSRS criteria for recognition, including areas that are beyond five road miles of a recognized fire station. 12 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
New PPC program changes effective July 1, 2014
We have revised the PPC program to capture the effects of enhanced fire protection capabilities that reduce fire loss and fire severity in Split Class 9 and Split Class 8B areas (as outlined below). This new structure benefits the fire service, community, and property owner.
New classifications
Through ongoing research and loss experience analysis, we identified additional differentiation in fire loss experience within our PPC program, which resulted in the revised classifications. We based the differing fire loss experience on the fire suppression capabilities of each community. The new PPC classes will improve the predictive value for insurers while benefiting both commercial and residential property owners. Here are the new classifications and what they mean.
Split classifications
When we develop a split classification for a community — for example 5/9 — the first number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of the responding fire station and 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply, such as a fire hydrant, suction point, or dry hydrant.
The second number is the class that applies to properties within 5 road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. We have revised the classification to reflect more precisely the risk of loss in a community, replacing Class 9 and 8B in the second part of a split classification with revised designations.
What’s changed with the new classifications?
We’ve published the new classifications as “X” and “Y” — formerly the "9" and "8B" portion of the split classification, respectively. For example:
A community currently displayed as a split 6/9 classification will now be a split 6/6X classification; with the "6X" denoting what was formerly classified as "9". Similarly, a community currently graded as a split 6/8B classification will now be a split 6/6Y classification, the "6Y" denoting what was formerly classified as "8B". Communities graded with single “9” or “8B” classifications will remain intact. 13 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
What’s changed?
As you can see, we’re still maintaining split classes, but it’s how we represent them to insurers that’s changed. The new designations reflect a reduction in fire severity and loss and have the potential to reduce property insurance premiums.
Benefits of the revised split class designations
To the fire service, the revised designations identify enhanced fire suppression capabilities used throughout the fire protection area
To the community, the new classes reward a community’s fire suppression efforts by showing a more reflective designation
To the individual property owner, the revisions offer the potential for decreased property insurance premiums
New water class
Our data also shows that risks located more than 5 but less than 7 road miles from a responding fire station with a creditable water source within 1,000 feet had better loss experience than those farther than 5 road miles from a responding fire station with no creditable water source. We’ve introduced a new classification —10W — to recognize the reduced loss potential of such properties.
What’s changed with Class 10W?
Class 10W is property-specific. Not all properties in the 5-to-7-mile area around the responding fire station will qualify. The difference between Class 10 and 10W is that the 10W-graded risk or property is within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. Creditable water supplies include fire protection systems using hauled water in any of the split classification areas.
What’s the benefit of Class 10W?
10W gives credit to risks within 5 to 7 road miles of the responding fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. That’s reflective of the potential for reduced property insurance premiums.
What does the fire chief have to do?
Fire chiefs don’t have to do anything at all. The revised classifications went in place automatically effective July 1, 2014 (July 1, 2015 for Texas).
What if I have additional questions?
Feel free to contact ISO at 800.444.4554 or email us at [email protected]. 14 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Distribution of PPC Grades
The 2023 published countrywide distribution of communities by the PPC grade is as follows:
Assistance
The PPC program offers help to communities, fire departments, and other public officials as they plan for, budget, and justify improvements. ISO is also available to assist in the understanding of the details of this evaluation.
The PPC program representatives can be reached by telephone at (800) 444-4554. The technical specialists at this telephone number have access to the details of this evaluation and can effectively speak with you about your questions regarding the PPC program. What's more, we can be reached via the internet at www.isomitigation.com/talk/.
We also have a website dedicated to our Community Hazard Mitigation Classification programs at www.isomitigation.com. Here, fire chiefs, building code officials, community leaders and other interested citizens can access a wealth of data describing the criteria used in evaluating how cities and towns are protecting residents from fire and other natural hazards. This website will allow you to learn more about the PPC program. The website provides important background information, insights about the PPC grading processes and technical documents.
ISO is also pleased to offer Fire Chiefs Online — a special, secured website with information and features that can help improve your PPC grade, including a list of the Needed Fire Flows for all the commercial occupancies ISO has on file for your community. Visitors to the site can download information, see statistical results and also contact ISO for assistance.
In addition, on-line access to the FSRS and its commentaries is available to registered customers for a fee. However, fire chiefs and community chief administrative officials are given access privileges to this information without charge.
To become a registered fire chief or community chief administrative official, register at www.isomitigation.com.
15 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
PPC Review
ISO concluded its review of the fire suppression features being provided for Shasta Lake FPSA.
The resulting community classification is Class 03/3Y.
If the classification is a single class, the classification applies to properties with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less in the community. If the classification is a split class (e.g., 6/XX):
The first class (e.g., “6” in a 6/XX) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or alternate water supply. The second class (XX or XY) applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station.
Alternative Water Supply: The first class (e.g., “6” in a 6/10) applies to properties within 5 road miles of a recognized fire station with no hydrant distance requirement. Class 10 applies to properties over 5 road miles of a recognized fire station. Class 10W applies to properties within 5 to 7 road miles of a recognized fire station with a recognized water supply within 1,000 feet.
Specific properties with a Needed Fire Flow in excess of 3,500 gpm are evaluated separately and assigned an individual classification.
FSRS Feature
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Emergency Communications
414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 3.00 3
422. Credit for Telecommunicators 2.43 4
432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 2.70 3
440. Credit for Emergency Communications 8.13 10
Fire Department
513. Credit for Engine Companies 6.00 6
523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.31 0.50
532. Credit for Pump Capacity 3.00 3
549. Credit for Ladder Service 0.35 4
553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.50 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.89 10
571. Credit for Company Personnel 9.91 15
581. Credit for Training
730. Credit for Operational Considerations
4.67 2.00
9 2
590. Credit for Fire Department 32.13 50
Water Supply
616. Credit for Supply System 20.41 30
621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3
631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 6.40 7
640. Credit for Water Supply 29.81 40
Divergence
1050. Community Risk Reduction
-2.05
5.09 --
5.50 Total Credit 73.11 105.50
16 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Emergency Communications
Ten percent of a community's overall score is based on how well the communications center receives and dispatches fire alarms. Our field representative evaluated:
• Communications facilities provided for the general public to report structure fires • Enhanced 9-1-1 Telephone Service including wireless
• Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) facilities
• Alarm receipt and processing at the communication center • Training and certification of telecommunicators
• Facilities used to dispatch fire department companies to reported structure fires Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
414. Credit Emergency Reporting 3.00 3
422. Credit for Telecommunicators 2.43 4
432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 2.70 3
Item 440. Credit for Emergency Communications: 8.13 10
Item 414 - Credit for Emergency Reporting (3 points)
The first item reviewed is Item 414 "Credit for Emergency Reporting (CER)". This item reviews the emergency communication center facilities provided for the public to report fires including 911 systems (Basic or Enhanced), Wireless Phase I and Phase II, Voice over Internet Protocol, Computer Aided Dispatch and Geographic Information Systems for automatic vehicle location.
ISO uses National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems as the reference for this section.
17 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 410. Emergency Reporting (CER)
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
A./B. Basic 9-1-1, Enhanced 9-1-1 or No 9-1-1 20.00 20
For maximum credit, there should be an Enhanced 9-1-1
system, Basic 9-1-1 and No 9-1-1 will receive partial
credit.
1. E9-1-1 Wireless 25.00 25
Wireless Phase I using Static ALI (automatic location
identification) Functionality (10 points); Wireless Phase II using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15 points); Both
available will be 25 points
2. E9-1-1 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 25.00 25
Static VoIP using Static ALI Functionality (10 points); Nomadic VoIP using Dynamic ALI Functionality (15
points); Both available will be 25 points
3. Computer Aided Dispatch 15.00 15
Basic CAD (5 points); CAD with Management Information
System (5 points); CAD with Interoperability (5 points)
4. Geographic Information System (GIS/AVL)
The PSAP uses a fully integrated CAD/GIS
management system with automatic vehicle location
(AVL) integrated with a CAD system providing dispatch
assignments.
The individual fire departments being dispatched do
not need GIS/AVL capability to obtain this credit.
15.00 15
Review of Emergency Reporting total: 100.00 100
Item 422- Credit for Telecommunicators (4 points)
The second item reviewed is Item 422 “Credit for Telecommunicators (TC)”. This item reviews the number of Telecommunicators on duty at the center to handle fire calls and other emergencies. All emergency calls including those calls that do not require fire department action are reviewed to determine the proper staffing to answer emergency calls and dispatch the appropriate emergency response. The 2013 Edition of NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems, recommends that ninety-five percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 15 seconds and ninety-nine percent of emergency calls shall be answered within 40 seconds. In addition, NFPA recommends that eighty percent of emergency alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and ninety-five percent of alarm processing shall be completed within 106 seconds of answering the call.
18 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
To receive full credit for operators on duty, ISO must review documentation to show that the communication center meets NFPA 1221 call answering and dispatch time performance measurement standards. This documentation may be in the form of performance statistics or other performance measurements compiled by the 9-1-1 software or other software programs that are currently in use such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) or Management Information System (MIS).
Item 420. Telecommunicators (CTC)
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
A1. Alarm Receipt (AR) 20.00 20
Receipt of alarms shall meet the requirements in
accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221
A2. Alarm Processing (AP) 10.77 20
Processing of alarms shall meet the requirements in
accordance with the criteria of NFPA 1221
B. Emergency Dispatch Protocols (EDP) 0.00 20
Telecommunicators have emergency dispatch
protocols (EDP) containing questions and a decisionsupport process to facilitate correct call categorization and prioritization.
C. Telecommunicator Training and Certification (TTC) 20.00 20 Telecommunicators meet the qualification
requirements referenced in NFPA 1061, Standard for
Professional Qualifications for Public Safety
Telecommunicator, and/or the Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials - International (APCO) Project 33. Telecommunicators are certified in
the knowledge, skills, and abilities corresponding to
their job functions.
D. Telecommunicator Continuing Education and
Quality Assurance (TQA)
Telecommunicators participate in continuing education
and/or in-service training and quality-assurance
programs as appropriate for their positions
10.00 20
Review of Telecommunicators total: 60.77 100
19 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 432 - Credit for Dispatch Circuits (3 points)
The third item reviewed is Item 432 “Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)”. This item reviews the dispatch circuit facilities used to transmit alarms to fire department members. A “Dispatch Circuit” is defined in NFPA 1221 as “A circuit over which an alarm is transmitted from the communications center to an emergency response facility (ERF) or emergency response units (ERUs) to notify ERUs to respond to an emergency”. All fire departments (except single fire station departments with full-time firefighter personnel receiving alarms directly at the fire station) need adequate means of notifying all firefighter personnel of the location of reported structure fires. The dispatch circuit facilities should be in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1221. “Alarms” are defined in this Standard as “A signal or message from a person or device indicating the existence of an emergency or other situation that requires action by an emergency response agency”.
There are two different levels of dispatch circuit facilities provided for in the Standard – a primary dispatch circuit and a secondary dispatch circuit. In jurisdictions that receive 730 alarms or more per year (average of two alarms per 24-hour period), two separate and dedicated dispatch circuits, a primary and a secondary, are needed. In jurisdictions receiving fewer than 730 alarms per year, a second dedicated dispatch circuit is not needed. Dispatch circuit facilities installed but not used or tested (in accordance with the NFPA Standard) receive no credit.
The score for Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC) is influenced by monitoring for integrity of the primary dispatch circuit. There are up to 0.90 points available for this Item. Monitoring for integrity involves installing automatic systems that will detect faults and failures and send visual and audible indications to appropriate communications center (or dispatch center) personnel.
ISO uses NFPA 1221 to guide the evaluation of this item. ISO's evaluation also includes a review of the communication system's emergency power supplies.
Item 432 “Credit for Dispatch Circuits (CDC)” = 2.70 points 20 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Fire Department
Fifty percent of a community's overall score is based upon the fire department's structure fire suppression system. ISO's field representative evaluated:
Engine and ladder/service vehicles including reserve apparatus Equipment carried
Response to reported structure fires
Deployment analysis of companies
Available and/or responding firefighters
Training
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
513. Credit for Engine Companies 6.00 6
523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.31 0.5
532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 3.00 3
549. Credit for Ladder Service 0.35 4
553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.5 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.89 10
571. Credit for Company Personnel 9.91 15
581. Credit for Training 4.67 9
730. Credit for Operational Considerations 2.00 2
Item 590. Credit for Fire Department: 32.13 50
Basic Fire Flow
The Basic Fire Flow for the community is determined by the review of the Needed Fire Flows for selected buildings in the community. The fifth largest Needed Fire Flow is determined to be the Basic Fire Flow. The Basic Fire Flow has been determined to be 1750 gpm. 21 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 513 - Credit for Engine Companies (6 points)
The first item reviewed is Item 513 "Credit for Engine Companies (CEC)". This item reviews the number of engine companies, their pump capacity, hose testing, pump testing and the equipment carried on the in-service pumpers. To be recognized, pumper apparatus must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus which include a minimum 250 gpm pump, an emergency warning system, a 300 gallon water tank, and hose. At least 1 apparatus must have a permanently mounted pump rated at 750 gpm or more at 150 psi.
The review of the number of needed pumpers considers the response distance to built-upon areas; the Basic Fire Flow; and the method of operation. Multiple alarms, simultaneous incidents, and life safety are not considered.
The greatest value of A, B, or C below is needed in the fire district to suppress fires in structures with a Needed Fire Flow of 3,500 gpm or less: 2 engine companies a) 2 engine companies to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 1½ miles.
b) 2 engine companies to support a Basic Fire Flow of 1750 gpm. c) 2 engine companies based upon the fire department’s method of operation to provide a minimum two engine response to all first alarm structure fires.
The FSRS recognizes that there are 2 engine companies in service.
The FSRS also reviews Automatic Aid. Automatic Aid is considered in the review as assistance dispatched automatically by contractual agreement between two communities or fire districts. That differs from mutual aid or assistance arranged case by case. ISO will recognize an Automatic Aid plan under the following conditions:
It must be prearranged for first alarm response according to a definite plan. It is preferable to have a written agreement, but ISO may recognize demonstrated performance.
The aid must be dispatched to all reported structure fires on the initial alarm. The aid must be provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
FSRS Item 512.D "Automatic Aid Engine Companies" responding on first alarm and meeting the needs of the city for basic fire flow and/or distribution of companies are factored based upon the value of the Automatic Aid plan (up to 1.00 can be used as the factor). The Automatic Aid factor is determined by a review of the Automatic Aid provider’s communication facilities, how they receive alarms from the graded area, inter-department training between fire departments, and the fire ground communications capability between departments.
For each engine company, the credited Pump Capacity (PC), the Hose Carried (HC), the Equipment Carried (EC) all contribute to the calculation for the percent of credit the FSRS provides to that engine company.
Item 513 “Credit for Engine Companies (CEC)” = 6.00 points 22 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 523 - Credit for Reserve Pumpers (0.50 points)
The item is Item 523 “Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)”. This item reviews the number and adequacy of the pumpers and their equipment. The number of needed reserve pumpers is 1 for each 8 needed engine companies determined in Item 513, or any fraction thereof.
Item 523 “Credit for Reserve Pumpers (CRP)” = 0.31 points Item 532 – Credit for Pumper Capacity (3 points)
The next item reviewed is Item 532 “Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)”. The total pump capacity available should be sufficient for the Basic Fire Flow of 1750 gpm. The maximum needed pump capacity credited is the Basic Fire Flow of the community.
Item 532 “Credit for Pumper Capacity (CPC)” = 3.00 points Item 549 – Credit for Ladder Service (4 points)
The next item reviewed is Item 549 “Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)”. This item reviews the number of response areas within the city with 5 buildings that are 3 or more stories or 35 feet or more in height, or with 5 buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, or any combination of these criteria. The height of all buildings in the city, including those protected by automatic sprinklers, is considered when determining the number of needed ladder companies. Response areas not needing a ladder company should have a service company. Ladders, tools and equipment normally carried on ladder trucks are needed not only for ladder operations but also for forcible entry, ventilation, salvage, overhaul, lighting and utility control.
The number of ladder or service companies, the height of the aerial ladder, aerial ladder testing and the equipment carried on the in-service ladder trucks and service trucks is compared with the number of needed ladder trucks and service trucks and an FSRS equipment list. Ladder trucks must meet the general criteria of NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus to be recognized.
The number of needed ladder-service trucks is dependent upon the number of buildings 3 stories or 35 feet or more in height, buildings with a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, and the method of operation.
The FSRS recognizes that there are 0 ladder companies in service. These companies are needed to provide fire suppression services to areas to meet NFPA 1710 criteria or within 2½ miles and the number of buildings with a Needed Fire Flow over 3,500 gpm or 3 stories or more in height, or the method of operation.
The FSRS recognizes that there are 1 service companies in service.
Item 549 “Credit for Ladder Service (CLS)” = 0.35 points 23 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 553 – Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (0.50 points) The next item reviewed is Item 553 “Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)”.
This item considers the adequacy of ladder and service apparatus when one (or more in larger communities) of these apparatus are out of service. The number of needed reserve ladder and service trucks is 1 for each 8 needed ladder and service companies that were determined to be needed in Item 540, or any fraction thereof.
Item 553 “Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks (CRLS)” = 0.00 points Item 561 – Deployment Analysis (10 points)
Next, Item 561 “Deployment Analysis (DA)” is reviewed. This Item examines the number and adequacy of existing engine and ladder-service companies to cover built-upon areas of the city.
To determine the Credit for Distribution, first the Existing Engine Company (EC) points and the Existing Engine Companies (EE) determined in Item 513 are considered along with Ladder Company Equipment (LCE) points, Service Company Equipment (SCE) points, Engine-Ladder Company Equipment (ELCE) points, and Engine-Service Company Equipment (ESCE) points determined in Item 549.
Secondly, as an alternative to determining the number of needed engine and ladder/service companies through the road-mile analysis, a fire protection area may use the results of a systematic performance evaluation. This type of evaluation analyzes computer-aided dispatch (CAD) history to demonstrate that, with its current deployment of companies, the fire department meets the time constraints for initial arriving engine and initial full alarm assignment in accordance with the general criteria of in NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments.
A determination is made of the percentage of built upon area within 1½ miles of a first-due engine company and within 2½ miles of a first-due ladder-service company.
Item 561 “Credit Deployment Analysis (DA)” = 5.89 points 24 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 571 – Credit for Company Personnel (15 points)
Item 571 “Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)” reviews the average number of existing firefighters and company officers available to respond to reported first alarm structure fires in the city.
The on-duty strength is determined by the yearly average of total firefighters and company officers on-duty considering vacations, sick leave, holidays, “Kelley” days and other absences.
When a fire department operates under a minimum staffing policy, this may be used in lieu of determining the yearly average of on-duty company personnel.
Firefighters on apparatus not credited under Items 513 and 549 that regularly respond to reported first alarms to aid engine, ladder, and service companies are included in this item as increasing the total company strength.
Firefighters staffing ambulances or other units serving the general public are credited if they participate in fire-fighting operations, the number depending upon the extent to which they are available and are used for response to first alarms of fire.
On-Call members are credited on the basis of the average number staffing apparatus on first alarms. Off-shift career firefighters and company officers responding on first alarms are considered on the same basis as on-call personnel. For personnel not normally at the fire station, the number of responding firefighters and company officers is divided by 3 to reflect the time needed to assemble at the fire scene and the reduced ability to act as a team due to the various arrival times at the fire location when compared to the personnel on-duty at the fire station during the receipt of an alarm.
The number of Public Safety Officers who are positioned in emergency vehicles within the jurisdiction boundaries may be credited based on availability to respond to first alarm structure fires. In recognition of this increased response capability the number of responding Public Safety Officers is divided by 2.
The average number of firefighters and company officers responding with those companies credited as Automatic Aid under Items 513 and 549 are considered for either on-duty or on-call company personnel as is appropriate. The actual number is calculated as the average number of company personnel responding multiplied by the value of AA Plan determined in Item 512.D.
The maximum creditable response of on-duty and on-call firefighters is 12, including company officers, for each existing engine and ladder company and 6 for each existing service company.
Chief Officers are not creditable except when more than one chief officer responds to alarms; then extra chief officers may be credited as firefighters if they perform company duties.
The FSRS recognizes 4.00 on-duty personnel and an average of 4.00 on-call personnel responding on first alarm structure fires.
Item 571 “Credit for Company Personnel (CCP)” = 9.91 points 25 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 581 – Credit for Training (9 points)
Training
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
A. Facilities, and Use 7.70 35
For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 18 hours per year in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001.
B. Company Training 12.72 25
For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 16 hours per month in structure fire related subjects as outlined in NFPA 1001.
C. Classes for Officers 12.00 12
For maximum credit, each officer should be certified in accordance with the general criteria of NFPA 1021. Additionally, each officer should receive 12 hours of continuing education on or off site.
D. New Driver and Operator Training 5.00 5
For maximum credit, each new driver and operator should receive 60 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451.
E. Existing Driver and Operator Training
For maximum credit, each existing driver and operator should receive 12 hours of driver/operator training per year in accordance with NFPA 1002 and NFPA 1451.
4.17 5
F. Training on Hazardous Materials
For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 6 hours of training for incidents involving hazardous materials in accordance with NFPA 472.
1.00 1
G. Recruit Training 3.33 5
For maximum credit, each firefighter should receive 240 hours of structure fire related training in accordance with NFPA 1001 within the first year of employment or tenure.
H. Pre-Fire Planning Inspections
For maximum credit, pre-fire planning inspections of each commercial, industrial, institutional, and other similar type building (all buildings except 1-4 family dwellings) should be made annually by company members. Records of inspections should include up-to date notes and sketches.
6.00 12
Item 580 “Credit for Training (CT)” = 4.67 points
26 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 730 – Operational Considerations (2 points)
Item 730 “Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)” evaluates fire department standard operating procedures and incident management systems for emergency operations involving structure fires.
Operational Considerations
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Standard Operating Procedures 50 50
The department should have established SOPs for
fire department general emergency operations
Incident Management Systems 50 50
The department should use an established incident
management system (IMS)
Operational Considerations total: 100 100
Item 730 “Credit for Operational Considerations (COC)” = 2.00 points Water Supply
Forty percent of a community's overall score is based on the adequacy of the water supply system. The ISO field representative evaluated:
the capability of the water distribution system to meet the Needed Fire Flows at selected locations up to 3,500 gpm.
size, type and installation of fire hydrants.
inspection and flow testing of fire hydrants.
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
616. Credit for Supply System 20.41 30
621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3
631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 6.40 7
Item 640. Credit for Water Supply: 29.81 40
27 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 616 – Credit for Supply System (30 points)
The first item reviewed is Item 616 “Credit for Supply System (CSS)”. This item reviews the rate of flow that can be credited at each of the Needed Fire Flow test locations considering the supply works capacity, the main capacity and the hydrant distribution. The lowest flow rate of these items is credited for each representative location. A water system capable of delivering 250 gpm or more for a period of two hours plus consumption at the maximum daily rate at the fire location is considered minimum in the ISO review.
Where there are 2 or more systems or services distributing water at the same location, credit is given on the basis of the joint protection provided by all systems and services available.
The supply works capacity is calculated for each representative Needed Fire Flow test location, considering a variety of water supply sources. These include public water supplies, emergency supplies (usually accessed from neighboring water systems), suction supplies (usually evidenced by dry hydrant installations near a river, lake or other body of water), and supplies developed by a fire department using large diameter hose or vehicles to shuttle water from a source of supply to a fire site. The result is expressed in gallons per minute (gpm).
The normal ability of the distribution system to deliver Needed Fire Flows at the selected building locations is reviewed. The results of a flow test at a representative test location will indicate the ability of the water mains (or fire department in the case of fire department supplies) to carry water to that location.
The hydrant distribution is reviewed within 1,000 feet of representative test locations measured as hose can be laid by apparatus.
For maximum credit, the Needed Fire Flows should be available at each location in the district.
Needed Fire Flows of 2,500 gpm or less should be available for 2 hours; and Needed Fire Flows of 3,000 and 3,500 gpm should be obtainable for 3 hours.
Item 616 “Credit for Supply System (CSS)” = 20.41 points 28 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 621 – Credit for Hydrants (3 points)
The second item reviewed is Item 621 “Credit for Hydrants (CH)”. This item reviews the number of fire hydrants of each type compared with the total number of hydrants.
There are a total of 399 hydrants in the graded area.
620. Hydrants, - Size, Type and Installation
Number of
Hydrants
A. With a 6 -inch or larger branch and a pumper outlet with or without 2½ - inch outlets
399
B. With a 6 -inch or larger branch and no pumper outlet but two or more 2½ -inch outlets, or with a small foot valve, or with a small barrel 0 C./D. With only a 2½ -inch outlet or with less than a 6 -inch branch 0
E./F. Flush Type, Cistern, or Suction Point 0
Item 621 “Credit for Hydrants (CH)” = 3.00 points
Item 630 – Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (7 points) The third item reviewed is Item 630 “Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing (CIT)”. This item reviews the fire hydrant inspection frequency, and the completeness of the inspections.
Inspection of hydrants should be in accordance with AWWA M-17, Installation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire Hydrants.
Frequency of Inspection (FI): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections.
Frequency Points
1 year 30
2 years 20
3 years 10
4 years 5
5 years or more No Credit
Note: The points for inspection frequency are reduced by 10 points if the inspections are incomplete or do not include a flushing program. An additional reduction of 10 points are made if hydrants are not subjected to full system pressure during inspections. If the inspection of cisterns or suction points does not include actual drafting with a pumper, or back-flushing for dry hydrants, 20 points are deducted.
Total points for Inspections = 4.00 points
29 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Frequency of Fire Flow Testing (FF): Average interval between the 3 most recent inspections.
Frequency Points
5 years 40
6 years 30
7 years 20
8 years 10
9 years 5
10 years or more No Credit
Total points for Fire Flow Testing = 2.40 points
Item 631 “Credit for Inspection and Fire Flow Testing (CIT)” = 6.40 points Divergence = -2.05
The Divergence factor mathematically reduces the score based upon the relative difference between the fire department and water supply scores. The factor is introduced in the final equation.
Community Risk Reduction
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
1025. Credit for Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement
(CPCE)
2.10 2.2
1033. Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (CFSE) 2.01 2.2 1044. Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) 0.98 1.1 Item 1050. Credit for Community Risk Reduction 5.09 5.50 30 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Item 1025 – Credit for Fire Prevention Code Adoption and Enforcement (2.2 points)
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Fire Prevention Code Regulations (PCR) 10.00 10
Evaluation of fire prevention code regulations in effect.
Fire Prevention Staffing (PS) 8.00 8
Evaluation of staffing for fire prevention activities.
Fire Prevention Certification and Training (PCT) 4.25 6 Evaluation of the certification and training of fire prevention code enforcement personnel.
Fire Prevention Programs (PCP) 16.00 16
Evaluation of fire prevention programs.
Review of Fire Prevention Code and Enforcement (CPCE)
subtotal:
38.25 40
Item 1033 – Credit for Public Fire Safety Education (2.2 points) Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Public Fire Safety Educators Qualifications and Training (FSQT) 10.00 10 Evaluation of public fire safety education personnel training and qualification as specified by the authority having jurisdiction.
Public Fire Safety Education Programs (FSP) 26.60 30
Evaluation of programs for public fire safety education.
Review of Public Safety Education Programs (CFSE) subtotal: 36.60 40 Item 1044 – Credit for Fire Investigation Programs (1.1 points) Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Fire Investigation Organization and Staffing (IOS) 8.00 8 Evaluation of organization and staffing for fire investigations.
Fire Investigator Certification and Training (IQT) 3.75 6 Evaluation of fire investigator certification and training.
Use of National Fire Incident Reporting System (IRS) 6.00 6 Evaluation of the use of the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) for the 3 years before the evaluation.
Review of Fire Investigation Programs (CIP) subtotal: 17.75 20 31 PPC is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc.
Summary of PPC Review
for
Shasta Lake FPSA
FSRS Item
Earned
Credit
Credit
Available
Emergency Communications
414. Credit for Emergency Reporting 3.00 3
422. Credit for Telecommunicators 2.43 4
432. Credit for Dispatch Circuits 2.70 3
440. Credit for Emergency Communications 8.13 10
Fire Department
513. Credit for Engine Companies 6.00 6
523. Credit for Reserve Pumpers 0.31 0.5
532. Credit for Pumper Capacity 3.00 3
549. Credit for Ladder Service 0.35 4
553. Credit for Reserve Ladder and Service Trucks 0.00 0.5 561. Credit for Deployment Analysis 5.89 10
571. Credit for Company Personnel 9.91 15
581. Credit for Training
730. Credit for Operational Considerations
4.67 2.00
9 2
590. Credit for Fire Department 32.13 50
Water Supply
616. Credit for Supply System 20.41 30
621. Credit for Hydrants 3.00 3
631. Credit for Inspection and Flow Testing 6.40 7
640. Credit for Water Supply 29.81 40
Divergence
1050. Community Risk Reduction
-2.05
5.09 --
5.50 Total Credit 73.11 105.5
Final Community Classification = 03/3Y
32 INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC.
HYDRANT FLOW DATA SUMMARY
Community
County State
California
(N) (04) Survey Date: December 20, 2016
PRESSURE FLOW -AT 20 PSI
PSI
TEST TYPE TEST LOCATION SERVICE INDIVIDUAL TOTAL STATIC RESID. NEEDED AVAIL. REMARKS*** MODEL TYPE FLOW TEST DATE NO. DIST.* HYDRANTS **
1 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
C 960 0 0 960 120 96 3500 2100 (C)-(1796 gpm) FTPC 03/01/2023 2 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
G 1230 0 0 1230 97 91 1000 4900 03/01/2016
3 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
D 560 0 0 560 82 65 500 1100 03/01/2016
4 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
B 630 0 0 630 103 33 500 700 03/01/2016
5.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
I 730 0 0 730 113 95 1500 1800 09/15/2015
6.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
J 480 0 0 480 81 42 2000 600 09/17/2015
7 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
I 870 0 0 870 59 44 1000 1500 03/01/2016
8.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
F 960 0 0 960 110 62 750 1300 03/01/2016
9.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
G 790 0 0 790 71 49 3000 1200 03/01/2016
10.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
G 790 0 0 790 85 33 1750 900 03/01/2016
11.0 Shasta Lake, City of, Zone
G 900 0 0 900 71 64 2500 2600 03/01/2016
*Comm = Commercial; Res = Residential.
Locust and Red Bluff
3256 Cadcade
5312 Pine Grove
4159 Doyle Ct
Shasta Lake Fpsa
California (N)(Shasta),
FLOW - GPM
Witnessed by: Insurance Services Office
Grand and Shasta Way
Central Valley High off Ashby
13596 Hill RD
2484 Cana Dr
18002 Ranchera Rd
17549 Flanagan Rd
Red Ave and Shasta Dam
*** (A)-Limited by available hydrants to gpm shown. Available facilities limit flow to gpm shown plus consumption for the needed duration of (B)-2 hours, (C)-3 hours or (D)-4 hours.
THE AVAILABLE FLOWS ONLY INDICATE THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME AND AT THE LOCATION WHERE TESTS WERE WITNESSED. **Needed is the rate of flow for a specific duration for a full credit condition. Needed Fire Flows greater than 3,500 gpm are not considered in determining the classification of the city when using the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule.
THE ABOVE LISTED NEEDED FIRE FLOWS ARE FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE PREMIUM CALCULATIONS ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO PREDICT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER REQUIRED FOR A LARGE SCALE FIRE CONDITION.
Q=(29.83(C(d2)p0.5))
33 34
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2024, AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 4488 RED BLUFF ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA
1.0 CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Mayor Powell convened the special meeting at 5:00 PM
1.2 Council Members present: Eisenbeisz, Jones, Morgan, Powell, Watkins
2.0 CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT for agendized items only, the City Council will allocate up to a maximum of three minutes per speaker for each agenda item.
The City Council will recess to Closed Session to discuss the following item(s).
Reportable action, if any, will be announced at the next regular meeting.
2.1 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9, Conference with Legal Counsel. One Case: Timothy Wright, Tim and Mike Enterprises, LLC, SGCC Management LLC vs. City of Shasta Lake, John Duckett Jr., Jessaca Lugo, Farhad Mortazavi, and James Takehara.
Motion/Vote:
No action was taken on this item.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Powell adjourned the closed session meeting at 5:45 pm. ____________________________
CHARITY TATLOW
Deputy City Clerk
35 36
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2024, AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 4488 RED BLUFF ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA
1.0 CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Mayor Powell convened the regular meeting at 6:00 PM and informed the public that no action was taken during the Special Meeting closed session.
1.2 Council Members present: Eisenbeisz, Jones, Morgan, Powell, Watkins
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Powell
1.4 Invocation
2.0 AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS:
2.1 None
3.0 PRESENTATIONS:
3.1 Katie Sears with Hill Country gave a presentation and update on Square One Homes and its Shasta Lake sites.
4.0 COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:
4.1 None
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT:
Patrick Henry Jones, Shasta County District 4 Supervisor, commented on current projects within the Board of Supervisors jurisdiction.
Pam Morgan made a public comment regarding various candidate forums, encouraging the public to educate themselves on candidates and to vote.
6.0 CONSENT AGENDA:
6.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 2, 2024.
6.2 Payrolls:
PE 1/6/2024 PD 1/12/2024 $155,002.38
6.3 Checks, E-payments, and wires:
11/9/2023 $44,686.50
11/30/2023 $284,794.65
37 12/7/2023 $203,586.68
12/14/2023 $359,578.13
6.4 Monthly Report of Investment Transactions:
LAIF:
December $13,983,858.51
Chandler:
November $34,713,325
December $34,794,428.94
6.5 2023 Mayors Annual Appointments Maddy Act List Amended
6.6 Resolution CC 2024-05 accepting the Water Treatment Plant Filter No. 2 Rehabilitation Project and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion.
Motion/Vote:
Councilman Jones requested item 6.1 be amended to include additional comments made during the Public Comment period.
Item 6.5 2023 Mayor’s Appointments Amended was pulled from the Consent Agenda and acted on separately.
By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Eisenbeisz), and carried, the Consent Agenda was approved.
Motion/Vote:
Item 6.5 was acted on separately. After discussion, by motion made/seconded (Morgan/Eisenbeisz), and carried, the item was approved.
Councilman Watkins voted opposed to the item.
7.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Discussion and possible action on the first reading of an Ordinance approving the addition of Section 10.36.230, “Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles within the Public Right of Way,” to the Shasta Lake Municipal Code.
Motion/Vote:
Councilman Watkins requested the Ordinance be amended to allow 24-hour parking for loading and unloading.
By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Morgan), and carried, the Ordinance was read in short title only, as amended, and moved for its second reading to the next meeting.
38 8.0 REGULAR AGENDA:
8.1 Resolution CC 2024-06 approving, authorizing, and directing the execution of an amended and restated joint exercise of powers agreement for the operation of the Redding Area Bus Authority.
Motion/Vote:
Item 6.5 was acted on separately. After discussion, by motion made/seconded (Morgan/Eisenbeisz), and carried, the item was approved.
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS:
Jessaca Lugo, City Manager, informed the council that the Cascade Village Groundbreaking ceremony would be on January 23, 2024.
Shasta Lake is expected to fill to the top, so she is hoping for 100% water allocation in 2024 if the weather continues.
The Supreme Court is expected to make determinations on various topics regarding homelessness and adequate sheltering.
10.0 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business, Mayor Powell adjourned the meeting at 7:12 pm. ____________________________
CHARITY TATLOW
Deputy City Clerk
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 Check Report Date Range: 12/29/2023 -
All Bank Codes Check Summary
Payable Payment
Payment Type Count Count
Regular Checks 40 36
Manual Checks 0 0
Voided Checks 0 0
Bank Drafts 13 13
EFT's 20 13
-·
73 62
Fund Summary
Fund
999
999
PAYMENT AUTHORIZED BY
Name
POOLED CASH
POOLED CASH
�.� � J!L�i
��/-�~-·,
�------------------J
1/5/2024 10:00:26 AM
Period
12/2023
1/2024
Discount Payment
0.00 181,849.48
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1,593,067.91
0.00 368,646.91 - -
0.00 2,143,564.30
Amount
40,350.07
2,103,214.23
2,143,564.30
SAUTHORIZED BY
� DATE
� , !11 l, ,,:7,&
54 55
56 57
58 Check Report Date Range: 01/11/2024 -
All Bank Codes Check Summary
Payment Type
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
Fund Name
999 POOLED CASH
I �JAYMENTAUTHORIZED BY
, I -
�t2
4�/1(�
1/12/2024 10:51:57 AM
I
DATE
Payable
Count
52 0
0 9
23 84
Fund Summary
Payment
Count
49 0
0 9
9 67
Period
1/2024
Discount
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Payment
202,445.74
0.00 0.00
43,956.54
187,440.49
433,842.77
Amount
433,842.77
433,842.77
�NATURES AUTHORIZED BY �a_,� l) ,q} 202
½� DATE
1/1fui,f
ATE
59 60
Report and Recommendations 6.5
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
___________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Shelby Millingar, Associate Civil Engineer
DATE: January 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Amendment to City of Shasta Lake Municipal Code Title 10 – Vehicles and Traffic
FILE NO.:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt an ordinance adding Section 10.36.230– Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles Within the Public Right-of-Way.
SUMMARY
Discussion and possible action adopting an ordinance adding Section 10.36.230– Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles Within the Public Right-of-Way.
BACKGROUND
The code enforcement officer and animal control supervisor of the City of Shasta Lake have requested changes to the City's Municipal Code Chapter 10.36 – Stopping, Standing, and Parking. These changes include new provisions that would prohibit the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles (RVs) in public rights-of-way and are aimed at preventing threats to public safety.
City staff have regularly encountered large RVs and trailers parked within the public right of way.
This situation can cause significant traffic flow issues, particularly on narrow roads, which can impede the movement of emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and other essential services.
Moreover, these large vehicles can obstruct the line of sight for drivers and pedestrians, significantly increasing the risk of accidents. Limited visibility can lead to collisions when drivers try to navigate around parked RVs and trailers.
61 The addition of the proposed section of the municipal code would enable city staff to regulate the presence of trailers and RVs within the public right of way, providing a clear, uncomplicated regulation that would be enforced under established City protocol.
Provisions of this proposed section shall be enforced pursuant to Chapter 1.17 – Administrative Citation. The following is the procedure which would be followed as outlined in the municipal code:
The enforcement officer will endeavor to elicit voluntary compliance. In the case of noncompliance, an administrative citation form will be issued to the responsible person by the enforcement officer for violations of this code, its adopted codes or applicable state codes in the following manner:
A. Personal Service. The enforcement officer shall attempt to locate and personally serve the responsible person and, if possible, obtain the signature of the responsible person on the administrative citation. If the served responsible person refuses or fails to sign the administrative citation, the failure or refusal to sign shall not affect the validity of the administrative citation or of subsequent proceedings.
B. Service of Citation by Mail.
1. If the enforcement officer is unable to locate the responsible person, the administrative citation shall be mailed to the responsible person by certified mail, postage prepaid with a return receipt requested. Simultaneously, the administrative citation may be sent by first class mail.
2. Service by mail will be sent to the responsible person's address as shown on public records or as known to the city. If the administrative citation is sent by certified mail and returned receipt is unsigned, then service shall be deemed effective by first class mail, provided the administrative citation sent by the first-class mail is not returned.
3. Service of the administrative citation shall be deemed effective five (5) days following deposit of such citation in the U.S. mail.
C. Service of Citation by Posting Notice.
1. If the enforcement officer does not succeed in serving the responsible person personally or by certified or first class mail, the enforcement officer will post the administrative citation in a conspicuous location on any real properly within the city in which the city has knowledge that the responsible person has a legal interest.
2. Posting of the administrative citation shall be deemed effective service as of the date that the citation is actually posted.
The proposed amendments the City of Shasta Lake Municipal Code include the following new Section:
10.36.230 – Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles Within the Public Right of Way It is unlawful for any person to park or store a trailer or recreational vehicle on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, or any other public right-of-way within the incorporated area of the City of 62 Shasta Lake. Provisions of this section shall be enforced pursuant to Chapter 1.17 – Administrative Citation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There will be no new significant fiscal impacts as a result of adopting this ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Ordinance CC-2024-
DISTRIBUTION
• City Manager
• City Attorney
63 64
ORDINANCE 2024-01
__________________________________________________________________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO THE SHASTA LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.36, BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 10.36.230 “PARKING OF TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY”
__________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS the City of Shasta Lake proposes to amend the Municipal Code by the by the addition of Section 10.36.230– Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles Within the Public Right of Way, as reflected below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake has established an administrative citation program through which Section 10.36.230 will be enforced; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake have duly considered the matter and, recognize the City’s continuing interest in promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Shasta Lake; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 16, 2024, and considered public testimony provided regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHASTA LAKE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: After hearing testimony, considering all evidence submitted into the administrative record, and engaging in due deliberation of the matters presented, City Council:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. Approves amendments the City of Shasta Lake Municipal Code as follows:
10.36.230 – Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles Within the Public Right of Way It is unlawful for any person to park or store a trailer or recreational vehicle on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, or any other public right-of-way within the incorporated area of the City of Shasta Lake. Provisions of this section shall be enforced pursuant to Chapter
1.17 – Administrative Citation. A twenty-four (24) hour grace period will be observed prior to enforcement of this section.
SECTION 2: Severability: If any provision of this ordinance or the applications thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the applications of such provision will remain in effect to the extent permitted by law.
SECTION 3: Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its second reading and posting as provided for by City Code. 65 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th Day of January, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________________________
JANICE POWELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Charity Tatlow, Deputy City Clerk
66 Report and Recommendations 6.6
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
DATE: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: BIENNIAL REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE CITY’S CONFLICT
OF INTEREST CODE
FILE NO.: A-050-070-116
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution accepting the City’s Conflict of Interest Code at the conclusion of its Biennial Review process.
BACKGROUND
Consistent with the Fair Political Practices Act's stipulated procedures, the City is obligated to conduct a review of its Conflict of Interest Code biennially.
Recommendations for adjustments are then proposed, a step usually prompted by the establishment of new positions or alterations in the responsibilities of existing employees. The staff has conducted a review and proposed the following modifications, pending approval from the City Council.
Changes include the addition of: Associate Civil Engineer, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, and Executive Assistant/Labor Standards Coordinator.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact
ATTACHMENTS
67 Resolution CC-2024-XX
City of Shasta Lake Conflict of Interest Code
DISTRIBUTION
City Council
City Attorney
City Files
68 RESOLUTION CC-2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE ACCEPTING THE CITY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AT THE CONCLUSION OF ITS 2024 BIENNIAL REVIEW PROCESS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake has previously adopted Conflict Rules, Regulations, and Codes; and
WHEREAS, the City must perform a Biennial Review Process of its Conflict-of-Interest Code during even numbered years; and
WHEREAS, the Deputy City Clerk and City Manager have reviewed the Code and found that three modifications should be made to include the Associate Civil Engineer, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, and Executive Assistant/Labor Standards Coordinator positions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake hereby accepts the City’s Conflict of Interest Code as and acknowledges its biennial review as complete.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
JANICE POWELL, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CHARITY TATLOW, Deputy City Clerk
69 70
Amended on February 6, 2024
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
71 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000, et.seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted Regulation 2, California Code of Regulations Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code. It can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of Regulation 2, California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated, along with the attached Appendices in which members and employees are designated, and disclosure categories are set forth, to constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Shasta Lake.
Designated employees shall file statements of Economic Interest with the City, which will make statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Gov. Code Section 81008).
Upon receipt of the statements of the City Council, Planning Commission, City Manager, Finance Director, and the City Attorney, the City shall make and retain a copy and forward the original to the FPPC in Sacramento, California.
Statements for all other designated employees will be retained by the City. 72 APPENDIX "A" - Designated Employees
Department Category Position Disclosure
Administration City Clerk/Dep. City Clerk
Community & Economic Development Manager
Executive Assistant/Labor Standards
Coordinator
1,2,&3
1,2,&3
1 2 &3
Finance Finance/ General Services Manager
Customer Service Supervisor
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
Development
Services Department
Development Services Director
Senior Planner
Building Official
Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,3&4
1,3&4
Public Services
(Electric, Roads,
Water, Wastewater,
and Parks)
Public Works Superintendents
Public Works Supervisor
City Engineer
Associate Civil Engineer
Electric Utility Director
Assistant Electric Utility Director
Electric Operations Manager
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
Consultants Engineering
Planning
1,2,3&4
1,2,3&4
The Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Manager, Finance Director, City Attorney, and all other City Officials who manage public investments as defined by 2 Cal. Code of Regulations § 18701 (b) are not subject to the City's Code but are subject to the disclosure requirements of the Act. (Government Code Section 87200 et. Seq.) [Regs. § 18730(b)(3)]
73 APPENDIX "B" – Disclosure Categories
Category
1 Officials and employees whose duties are broad and indefinable:
Investments, business positions, and income from sources located in or doing business in the City.
Interests in real property located in the City, including property located within a two-mile radius of any property owned or used by the City. 2 Officials and Employees whose duties involve contracting or purchasing:
Investments, business positions, and sources of income of the type which:
Provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment of the type utilized by the City.
3 Officials and employees with regulatory powers:
Investments, business positions, and sources of income of the type which Are subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the City.
4 Designated employees whose decisions may affect real property interests: Investments, business positions, and sources of income of the type which:
Engage in land development, construction, or the acquisition or sale of real property.
Interests in real property located within the City, including property within a two-mile radius of any property owned or used by the City. 74 APPENDIX "C" – Disclosure Categories
"Consultant" is an individual from a firm or corporation who, pursuant to a contract with the City:
(A) Makes a governmental decision whether to:
(1). Approve a rate rule or regulation;
(2) Adopt or enforce a law;
(3) Issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, application, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization or entitlement; (4) Authorize the City to enter into, modify, or renew a contract, provided it is the type of contract that requires agency approval;
(5) Grant agency approval to a contract that requires City approval and in which the city is a party or to the specifications for such a contract; (6) Grant City approval to a plan, design, report, study, or similar item; (7) Adopt, or grant City approval of, policies, standards, or guidelines for the City, or for any subdivision thereof; or
(B) Serves in a staff capacity with the City and, in that capacity, performs the same or Substantially the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by an Individual holding a position specified in the City's Conflict of Interest Code.
75 76
Report and Recommendations 8.1
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
___________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Shelby Millingar, Associate Civil Engineer
DATE: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUMMIT CITY WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
FILE NO.: G-100-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the findings on the Summit City Wastewater Feasibility Study (SCWWFS) and direct staff to pursue grant opportunities to implement the Alternative 3 project as presented in the SCWWFS.
BACKGROUND
Development of the Summit City area of Shasta Lake began in the 1940’s with the construction of Shasta Dam. Originally one of the four boomtowns in the area, wastewater collection and treatment in Summit City was accomplished via septic systems. When the original wastewater collection system was constructed for what is now the City of Shasta Lake in the 1970s, Summit City was not included in the project due to a variety of factors.
Over the years, these septic systems have aged and begun to fail or are at a high risk of failing due to their age and lack of maintenance. Investigation into the failure of septic systems in this area has been looked into twice in an official capacity; first in 1980 by W. A. Gelonek & Affiliates, Inc. (G&A) in the Wastewater Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report for Summit City Area Sewage Collection and District Wide Treatment and Disposal (1980 Report), and again by the City and PACE Engineering, Inc. (PACE) in 1997 as part of the Infrastructure Needs Study for the Summit City and Riddle Road Areas (1997 Study). Additionally, Public Works staff has noticed failing systems over the years, supporting the findings in these reports.
In the 1997 Study, water sampling efforts in the Summit City area showed presence of constituents in surface water that indicated the presence of fecal coliform at various locations. 77 At the City Council meeting on February 1, 2022, the Council approved Resolution CC-2022-16 approving the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between Shasta County and the City of Shasta Lake (City) for $250,000 of grant funding from the California Regional Early Action Planning Grant Program (REAP) through the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the purpose of completing a wastewater feasibility study for the Summit City area. The goal of the REAP program is to prioritize planning activities that support housing production needed to meet the needs of communities. Per the grant goals, the objective of the SCWWFS was to identify and develop feasible design alternatives to extend the City’s wastewater collection system to this area of the City.
Staff then issued a formal Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ&P) on August 16, 2022 to prepare the SCWWFS. Two (2) proposals were received, and the contract was awarded to PACE Engineering, Inc. of Redding, CA on October 18, 2022 via Resolution CC-2022-97.
A large focus of the SCWWFS was conducting public outreach and obtaining support from the residents. PACE conducted two public meetings, and City staff held an “open house” style event where residents could come and ask questions. A survey was mailed to all residents and also made available at the local post office and online. Additionally, responses from the Ranchera Pines neighborhood were initially low, so staff spent a day canvasing that neighborhood to gauge support.
As part the SCWWFS, the City completed water quality sampling and specialized testing to confirm the presence of human fecal matter in the surface water in the Summit City area. Two testing locations had high levels, indicating human fecal matter, two locations were borderline (present, but not high enough levels to definitively say yes), and the fifth location was nondetected at the southern end of the Ranchera Pines neighborhood. The following is an excerpt from the study depicting the severity of the situation:
“A no project alternative, also known as a do nothing alternative, was not considered, as the degradation of surface water by human fecal contamination actively poses a risk to both human and environmental health. It should be noted that the 1980 Report considered a no project alternative to not be viable by stating that the identified pollution problem cannot be ignored.” (PACE, 2024, p. 18)
Septic systems are under the jurisdiction of the Shasta County Environmental Health Department (SCEHD), and the current requirements for installing septic systems prohibit new installations for the small lots in Summit City. Additionally, the SCWWFS found that the soils were unsuitable for septic systems. The following is a direct excerpt from the study:
“…Summit City is in an area with soils that are unsuitable for septic systems. Existing soil groups have a very low to moderately low capacity to transmit water, and they do not meet current SCEHD requirements for acceptable soil percolation rates for installation of a septic system. The bedrock in the area is relatively shallow, which makes it difficult to meet the minimum depth separation between the septic system leach lines and the top of the water table in the wet months. The existing septic systems will continue to be used until failure in many cases. The soil conditions contribute to the failure of existing septic systems and severely hinders the development of replacement leach fields and new systems, especially on small lots with insufficient area for such systems.” (PACE, 2024, p. viii)
78 PACE developed 6 design alternatives, covering different geographical zones of the Summit City area. The limits of each zone were determined by feasible design and construction of wastewater infrastructure. PACE worked with staff to determine which considerations were most essential for developing an effective and feasible project. Factors included parcel size (which can prohibit and/or limit the ability to replace failing septic systems), density of known septic system issues, feedback from residents, and water quality sampling results were used to drive alternative selection.
PACE then created a decision matrix (Table 21 of the SCWWFS) to determine which alternative would be the best option for the City and its residents. The criteria were as follows:
1. Project Costs
2. Operations and Maintenance Costs
3. Environmental and Permitting Constraints
4. Right-of-Way Acquisitions
5. Community Support
6. Effectiveness to Address Problem/Concerns
7. Likelihood of implementation
Taking these factors into consideration, Alternative 3 was selected as the most feasible option.
It covers the core of the Summit City area, where residents on smaller parcels are having the most issues with failing septic systems (as well as covering all testing sites where human fecal matter was detected). Alternative 3 is shown in Exhibit A, attached to this staff report.
There is grant funding currently available through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) that could potentially fund the entirety of Alternative 3, including all work on private property, to connect residents to the wastewater collection system, along with any upsizing or modifications to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. This level of funding is unprecedented and is swiftly being allocated by the State to local agencies. Staff recommends that the City take advantage of this funding if possible. Note that there is no guarantee that the City would be successful in an application; however, septic to sewer projects are still being prioritized by the state and staff is recommending pursuing this opportunity for a fully funded project.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no fiscal impact to accept this study, as the SCWWFS was grant funded.
Potential Future Fiscal Impacts – Should grant funding be obtained and the project undertaken, there will be no fiscal impact for the installation of the system or the connection of private laterals.
There would be a monthly fee (current rate for residential is $78.03 per month), to cover operations and maintenance of the wastewater collection system. The monthly sewer collection fee would offset ongoing maintenance costs for private systems.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Alternative 3
Web link to all referenced documents - https://www.cityofshastalake.org/1247/Summit-CityWastewater-Feasibility-Study 79 DISTRIBUTION
City Manager
City Attorney
80 RESOLUTION CC 2024-xx
___________________________________________________________________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE
FINDINGS OF THE SUMMIT CITY WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEEK GRANT FUNDING FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
___________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City proceeded as previously directed by the City Council to complete a feasibility study to evaluate the conversion of the Summit City area from septic to sewer; and WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake City Council previously authorized staff to enter into a contract with PACE Engineering, Inc. of Redding, CA for professional services related to the Summit City Wastewater Feasibility Study (SCWWFS) in the amount of $250,000.00; and WHEREAS, work on the SSWWFS is now complete.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Shasta Lake City Council accepts the findings of the Summit City Wastewater Feasibility Study and authorize the City Manager or designee to seek grant funding for Alternative 3.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_____
JANICE POWELL, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CHARITY TATLOW, Deputy City Clerk
81 82
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
PROPOSED LS A WWTF
PROPOSED LS C
PROPOSED LS B
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW POND
PROPOSED LS D
ALTERNATIVE 3
SERVICE AREA
FIGURE 6
DATE: 12/23
JOB # 110.110
CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
SUMMIT CITY WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 3
1 IN =
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1,200 2,400
1,200 FT
LEGEND
SUMMIT CITY AREA
PARCELS
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE
MAJOR CREEKS
NEW GRAVITY SEWER MAIN
NEW PRESSURE FORCE MAIN
83 84
Report and Recommendations 8.2
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
DATE: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR THE FIRE
RISK REDUCTION COMMUNITY LIST
FILE NO.: “New”
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution authorizing an application to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for acceptance into the Fire Risk Reduction Community List.
BACKGROUND
The "Fire Risk Reduction Community List" is a compilation of local agencies that are located in a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. These agencies are recognized for following the best practices for local fire planning. The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection develops and maintains this list, which was first launched on July 1, 2022, and is updated every two years thereafter. By qualifying for this list, a local agency demonstrates compliance with the Board's requirements and its commitment to fire planning that exceeds state minimum standards.
As an approved community, Shasta Lake will receive prioritized local assistance grant funding applications from Local Agencies based on the Fire Risk Reduction Communities List. This list also helps this community to become more resilient against wildfires by encouraging cost-effective measures to create ignition-resistant homes. The 2024 application period will be open from December 1, 2023, to April 1, 2024 85 Requirements for this designation are in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14.
Cities that apply for the list must meet all the following requirements to obtain this designation:
1. Adopt a local ordinance designating Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and submit it to the Board. (will be complete by April deadline)
2. The Safety Element of the General Plan has been submitted to the Board for review within the last eight years, and all recommendations have been adopted. (complete)
3. After July 1, 2022, a progress report on implementing the most recent fire safety recommendations from the Board upon subdivision review in a Fire Safety Survey for each community reviewed within the jurisdiction must be submitted.
In addition to the three requirements above, a city must also qualify for two of the following six criteria:
4. The applicant has adopted one or more local requirements that exceed the minimum regulations adopted by the state.
5. The applicant has adopted one or more local defensible space ordinances, rules, or regulations that exceed state minimum regulations. (complete/Ordinance CC2022-292)
6. The applicant has adopted a Wildland Urban Interface code stricter than Chapter 49, Part 9, of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
7. The applicant has adopted a zoning ordinance, special district, or special overlay zone that includes fire hazard mitigation requirements that exceed state minimum requirements.
8. The applicant has adopted a comprehensive retrofit code or plan for existing homes.
9. The applicant has identified wildfire as a high-priority hazard in a Local or MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP or MJHMP) updated within the last five years, or as a low or medium-priority hazard with the inclusion of one or more mitigation actions, and has adopted the LHMP or MJHMP into the general plan safety element. (complete)
City personnel have engaged in discussions with officials from the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District (SLFPD) regarding the application process and criteria. In accordance with the stipulated application requirements, two distinct applications will be filed—one by the City and another by the SLFPD.
86 FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution CC-2024-XX
Fire Risk Reduction Community List FAQs
14 CCR 1268.01 Criteria for Local Agencies that are City or County
DISTRIBUTION
City Council
City Attorney
Shasta Lake Fire Protection District
87 88
RESOLUTION CC-2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE, COUNTY
OF SHASTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE FIRE RISK REDUCTION COMMUNITY PROGRAM WHEREAS, Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4290.1, the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board), the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division
1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Article 3 established the criteria for the Fire Risk Reduction Community (FRRC) list, which creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with Board requirements and that have enacted FRRC local policies; and WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake desires to submit an application for the FRRC list.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to submit an application to the Board.
SECTION 3. If the Application is approved, staff is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Program and all amendments thereto.
SECTION 4. The City of Shasta Lake City Manager is authorized to execute and deliver the Application and the Program Documents on behalf of the Applicant for participation in the Program.
SECTION 5. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Resolution on the minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption, and the Deputy City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 2024 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
__________________________
JANICE POWELL, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Charity Tatlow, Deputy City Clerk
89 90
Fire Risk Reduction Community List FAQs
Overview
• What is the Fire Risk Reduction Community List (FRRCL)? Public Resources Code 4290.1 requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to develop and maintain “a list of local agencies located in a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone...that meet best practices for local fire planning." This list will be published on the Board’s website by July 1, 2022, and updated every two years thereafter. The next update will be effective July 1, 2024. The Board’s regulations pertaining to the List can be found in the California Code of Resources, Title 14, Sections 1268.00-1268.04. • How will the List be used? What does it mean for a local agency to be on or off the List?
Public Resources Code 4124.7 requires CAL FIRE to “prioritize local assistance grant funding applications from local agencies based on the “Fire Risk Reduction Community List.” Wildfire Prevention Grant applicants will receive priority if the applicant is on the Fire Risk Reduction Community List. Projects are selected on a competitive basis and consecutive awards are not guaranteed. To learn more about available grants and the grant process, please visit Wildfire Prevention Grants | CAL FIRE.
• What is considered a “local agency” for the purposes of this List? A local agency is defined as “Any city, city and county, or county; tribal agency; agency, department, district or other publicly funded entity serving a city or and county.” Non-profits, homeowner’s associations, Fire Safe Councils, and other non-governmental organizations are not considered local agencies. • Does a local agency need to reapply when the List is updated every two years to remain on the List?
Yes.
• How do I apply for the List?
The application form is available on the Board’s website during the open application period, along with detailed instructions on the application process.
Applications are due April 1st of every even-numbered year. To navigate to the website, please visit bof.fire.ca.gov, under the Projects & Programs tab, select Fire Risk Reduction Communities List.
91 • When is the FRRCL application period open?
The application period is open at the beginning of every even year and due April 1st of the same even year. The Board will not accept applications outside of this open application period, nor will the application be available outside of the open period. You can sign up to receive automatic notifications of the application period here: State Board of Forestry & Fire Protection list manager sign up Wildfire Prevention Grants & the Fire Risk Reduction Community List • Does not being eligible for the List preclude a local agency from applying for or receiving Wildfire Prevention Grant funding?
No, the Wildfire Prevention Grants eligibility remains as is listed in the Wildfire Prevention Grants Procedural Guide for the corresponding fiscal year. Applicants not eligible for the List will not be precluded from receiving grant funds. • Will a local agency receive priority for grant applications designed to meet the eligibility criteria with the goal of being added to the List? Yes. Wildfire Prevention Grant applicants will receive priority for utilizing the funding to meet the List eligibility requirements. Applications are evaluated based on the criteria located in the Wildfire Prevention Grants Procedural Guide for the corresponding fiscal year.
Subdivision Review Program & the Fire Risk Reduction Community List • Does a city or county have to have received one or more reviews from the Subdivision Review Program to meet criterion 1268.01(a)(4)? What if the local agency does not have any subdivisions that are eligible for review by the program?
No. If a local agency has not yet been reviewed by the Subdivision Review Program, or if it contains no subdivisions eligible for review, it only needs to indicate this in the List application form for this criterion to be met. • Does a city or county have to have implemented the recommendations from each subdivision review it has received to meet criterion 1268.01(a)(4)? What if some of these recommendations are infeasible to implement?
No. The progress report submitted may explain why certain criteria have not yet been implemented or are infeasible to implement and still meet this criterion. 92 Subdivision Map Act Findings
• How do I submit subdivision map findings?
To submit your subdivision map findings, please fill out the Subdivision Map Finding Form and submit to [email protected]. For additional information you can visit bof.fire.ca.gov, Projects and Programs tab, Subdivision Findings, or click here to be directed to the site: Subdivision Findings webpage.
Miscellaneous
• Is the Fire Risk Reduction Community List the same thing as, or related to, the Community at Risk List?
No, these lists are separate and unrelated to each other. The Fire Risk Reduction Community List focuses on proactive community planning and risk reduction whereas the Community at Risk List is based primarily on exposure to the hazard of wildfire.
• How was the definition of a Low-Income Local Agency in 1268.00(e) determined?
For cities -- This definition is based on a city’s median income relies on data published annually by the Department of Housing and Community Development in 25 CCR § 6932. This source was selected for consistency with the data already used by CAL FIRE’s Grants program in determining low-income status.
For counties – A low-income county is one with a median household income equal to or less than $64,352. The 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) from the US Census Bureau reports a California statewide median income of $80,440, and 80% of that number is $64,352. This number will be updated continually in the regulations as future ACS data becomes available, however, for the 2024 application, this is the information we will be using to determine eligibility.
• How does being on the Fire Risk Reduction Communities list affect my insurance?
If you have questions or concerns relating to insurance, please contact the Department of Insurance directly: Department of Insurance, Safer from Wildfires Webpage.
Please direct additional questions to [email protected]. 93 1/30/24, 8:19 AM View Document - California Code of Regulations https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I3D481FB0F23811EC9A868E8571115B92?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitio… 1/2 Home Table of Contents
§ 1268.01. Criteria for Local Agencies that are Cities, City and County, or Counties. 14 CA ADC § 1268.01
Barclays Official California Code of Regulations
Effective: February 7, 2022
(a) A Local Agency that is a city, city and county, or county shall qualify for placement on the Fire Risk Reduction Community List if it meets all of criteria (1)-(4) and two of criteria (5)-(10). A Low-income Local Agency that is a city, city and county, or county shall qualify for the list if two or more of criteria (5)-(10) have not yet been met but are included in the safety element of the Local Agency's general plan as policy objectives.
(1) The applicant has adopted a local ordinance designating Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) pursuant to Government Code § 51179(a) and submitted it to the Board pursuant to 14 CCR § 1280.02. The applicant shall provide the date the ordinance was submitted to the Board, or submit the ordinance with their application. (2) Applicants who are counties have submitted the findings for all tentative and parcel maps approved for areas located in SRA or LRA VHFHSZ to the Board pursuant to 14 CCR § 1266.02. The applicant shall provide a list of subdivisions submitted to the Board since January 1, 2013, or since the last time the Local Agency submitted an application for the Fire Risk Reduction Community List, whichever is most recent.
(3) The safety element of the Local Agency's general plan has been submitted to the Board for review pursuant to Government Code § 65302.5(b) within the last eight years, and all recommendations have been adopted. The applicant shall provide the final adopted safety element.
(4) After July 1, 2022, a progress report on implementation of the most recent fire safety recommendations from the Board upon subdivision review in a Fire Safety Survey, pursuant to 14 CCR § 1267.01, for each community reviewed within the jurisdiction.
This report shall be generated by the Local Agency and submitted to the Board. The applicant shall provide the date this report was submitted to the Board, or attach the report to their application. (5) The applicant has adopted one or more local requirements which exceed the minimum regulations adopted by the state in the Fire Safe Regulations (14 CCR §§ 1270.00-1276.04). The applicant shall cite the local requirement(s) and which state minimum requirement(s) it exceeds.
(6) The applicant has adopted one or more local defensible space ordinances, rules, or regulations which exceed state minimum regulations in 14 CCR § 1299.03. The applicant shall specify how the local requirements exceed the state minimum requirements. (7) The applicant has adopted a Wildland Urban Interface code stricter than Chapter 49, Part 9, of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The applicant shall cite the local requirement(s) and which state minimum requirement(s) it exceeds. (8) The applicant has adopted a zoning ordinance, special district, or special overlay zone that includes fire hazard mitigation requirements which exceed state minimum requirements. Such requirements may address safe zones or areas of refuge, structure density, ornamental vegetation, subdivision design, structure design features, or other fire safety features. The applicant shall provide the ordinance, district, or overlay zone and cite which state minimum requirements the local requirements exceed. (9) The applicant has adopted a comprehensive retrofit code or plan for existing homes. The applicant shall provide the adopted code or plan.
California Code of Regulations
Barclays California Code of Regulations
Title 14. Natural Resources
Division 1.5. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Fire Protection (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter 1. Subdivision Safety
Article 3. Fire Risk Reduction Community List
Effective: February 7, 2022
14 CCR § 1268.01
§ 1268.01. Criteria for Local Agencies that are Cities, City and County, or Counties.
Currentness
94 1/30/24, 8:19 AM View Document - California Code of Regulations https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I3D481FB0F23811EC9A868E8571115B92?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitio… 2/2 (10) The applicant has identified wildfire as a high priority hazard in a Local or Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP or MJHMP) updated within the last five years, or as a low or medium priority hazard with the inclusion of one or more mitigation actions, and has adopted the LHMP or MJHMP into the general plan safety element. The applicant shall provide the adopted LHMP or MJHMP.
Credits
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 4290.1, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 4126, 4127 and 4290.1, Public Resources Code.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 2-7-2022; operative 2-7-2022 (Register 2022, No. 6). (Filing deadline specified in Government Code section 11349.3(a) extended 60 calendar days pursuant to Executive Order N-40-20).
This database is current through 1/19/24 Register 2024, No. 3.
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 1268.01, 14 CA ADC § 1268.01
END OF DOCUMENT
95 96
Report and Recommendations 8.3
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
DATE: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROHOUSING DESIGNATION FILE NO.: “New”
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution authorizing an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for Prohousing Designation.
BACKGROUND
The Prohousing Designation Program is a California state initiative that provides incentives to cities and counties to increase the availability of housing statewide. To receive the Prohousing Designation, jurisdictions must meet basic threshold requirements related to compliance with the Housing Element Law and other state housing laws and demonstrate actions worth at least 30 points spread across each of four categories: favorable zoning and land use, acceleration of housing production timeframes, reduction of construction and development costs, and providing financial subsidies.
The benefits of a community receiving the Prohousing Designation include additional points or other preferences in scoring competitive housing, community development, and infrastructure programs. This can help the community to better meet California's housing goals, improve the quality of life of all Californians, and end homelessness.
Jurisdictions that have been awarded the Prohousing Designation must continue to comply with the basic threshold requirements related to the Housing Element Law and 97 other state housing laws. They should also continue to demonstrate actions worth at least 30 points, distributed across the four categories.
To apply for the Prohousing Designation, applicants must submit a complete, signed application package to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in electronic format.
HCD staff assisted the City of Shasta Lake by preparing a draft Prohousing application, demonstrating that the City surpasses the minimum 30-point requirement for qualification under existing policy. No further policy changes are required of the City to qualify for the Pro housing designation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Submitting the application does not have any financial implications. However, there is a possibility of securing future funding due to the Pro Housing designation.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution CC-2024-XX
DISTRIBUTION
City Council
City Attorney
Development Services Department
98 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING
APPLICATION TO AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PROHOUSING DESIGNATION
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.9 established the Prohousing Designation Program (“Program”), which creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with state housing element requirements and that have enacted Prohousing local policies; and WHEREAS, such jurisdictions will be designated Prohousing, and, as such, will receive additional points or other preference during the scoring of their competitive Applications for specified housing and infrastructure funding; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has adopted regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 6600 et seq.) to implement the Program (“Program Regulations”), as authorized by Government Code section 65589.9, subdivision (d); and
WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake (“Applicant”) desires to submit an Application for a Prohousing Designation (“Application”).
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application to the Department.
2. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it is currently in compliance with applicable state housing law.
3. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it will continue to comply with applicable housing laws and to refrain from enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other local governmental actions that may or do inhibit or constrain housing production. Examples of such local laws, policies, and actions include moratoriums on development; local voter approval requirements related to housing production; downzoning; and unduly restrictive or onerous zoning regulations, development standards, or permit procedures. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that the Prohousing Policies in its Application comply with its duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing pursuant to Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its general plan is in alignment with an adopted sustainable communities strategy pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21155- 21155.4. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its policies for the treatment of homeless encampments on public property comply with and will continue to comply with the Constitution and that it has enacted 99 best practices in its jurisdiction that are consistent with the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness “7 Principles for Addressing Encampments” (June 17, 2022, update).
4. If the Application is approved, Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Program, and all amendments thereto (the “Program Documents”).
5. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be subject to the Application; the terms and conditions specified in the Program Documents; the Program Regulations; and any and all other applicable law.
6. The City of Shasta Lake City Manager is authorized to execute and deliver the Application and the Program Documents on behalf of the Applicant for participation in the Program.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
JANICE POWELL, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CHARITY TATLOW, Deputy City Clerk
100
1 Jessaca Lugo
From: Keith Williams (SRTA) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:58 AM
To: Shelby Millingar; Whitney Zeller; Peter Bird
Cc: Sean Tiedgen; Mehdi Moeinaddini; Michael Kuker; William Bond; Jessaca Lugo Subject: Prohousing Designation
Good Morning, City of Shasta Lake Partners!
In order to stay competitive in the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program (and multiple other state programs) and, to increase the region’s likelihood of continuing its successful active transportation grant assistance program, local agencies are highly encouraged to seek the Prohousing Designation from California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Please see the highlighted notes from Brenda Caruso’s email below and let me know, at your earliest convenience, if the city intends to seek this designation and when, so I may include the relevant information in our upcoming grant application to fund the next round of active transportation grant assistance.
If the city seeks the designation and runs into challenges, please let us know, so we may share any common hurdles with other partners and so we may see how we might assist.
Thank you.
Keith Williams, MS, MCRP, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner I Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) 1255 East Street, Suite 202, Redding, CA 96001 I 530-262-6192 From: Caruso, Brenda@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Grah, Kathy M@DOT <[email protected]>; Battles, Michael@DOT <[email protected]>; Clark, Cherie D@DOT <[email protected]>; Pendergast, Steve J@DOT <[email protected]>; Maxwell, John G@DOT <[email protected]>; Alfred Cathey <[email protected]>; External, caukland@DOT <[email protected]>; External, bmichaelsen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, dorrispublicworks@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, csanders@DOT <[email protected]>; External, DColbeck <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, Dnewton <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, dpedersen@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, jtedder@DOT <[email protected]>; Jenn Pollom <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, Jpicotte <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Keith Williams (SRTA) <[email protected]>; External, 101
2 ftjones@DOT <[email protected]>; Kendra Ramsey <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, planning@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, kmaze@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, casson@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, johnmannle@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, mbray@DOT <[email protected]>; External, mcummins@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Kuker <[email protected]>; External, mitchcrosby@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, montaguepubwks@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, Pheimbigner <[email protected]>; External, PKokkas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, citymanager@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, sfriend@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sean Tiedgen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, steve@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, tjuhasz@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, cityoftulelake@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alfred Cathey <[email protected]>; [email protected]; External, bmichaelsen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jenn Pollom <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Keith Williams (SRTA) <[email protected]>; Kendra Ramsey <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Kuker <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sean Tiedgen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; External, tjuhasz@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Vance, Kendee R@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: STPG Workshop Pro‐Housing Q&A Follow‐Up
Good morning all,
Thank you so much for attending the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant workshop.
During the workshop we received a question regarding how the Pro-Housing Designation program aligns with the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants. I wanted to follow-up with a clear answer for anyone who was interested:
The Sustainable Communities grants focus on reducing GHGs, as well as integrated housing, land use, and transportation. Prohousing Designation is one example of how applications would demonstrate how the project furthers this coordinated and integrated approach. Specifically:
They can explain how the project is located in an area that has earned a Prohousing Designation and positive scores for Prohousing Enhancement policies from HCD. Jurisdictions supporting integrated housing, land use, and transportation planning may have policies that include Prohousing 102
3 Enhancement Factors, which represent a multi-faceted approach to planning objectives, are consistent with state priorities, go beyond state law, etc. Competitive applications may also identify a jurisdiction’s policies that promote housing development and reduce VMT [and GHGs]. For information about the HCD Prohousing Designation Program and how applicants can develop a competitive application with Prohousing Enhancement Factors or VMT reducing policies, refer to Grant Application Guide, Appendix A, Integrated Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Planning.
HCD will highly recommend awards for City and county primary/sub-applicants that earn this designation.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions regarding the development of your grant applications.
Thank you,
Brenda Hernandez Caruso
Associate Transportation Planner
Regional Planning and Local Development Review
Caltrans District 2
Work Cell: (530) 782-3399
103