Section 3 . Revisions to the D raft E IR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. During the course of reviewing comments received, specifically concerning the language in the General Plan policies and reviewing the proposed Planning Area boundary, the City has made changes to these policies and related figures and will be reflected in the DEIR. The revised DEIR will be attached to the FEIR showing the policy and figure revisions in underline/strikethrough. These revisions would not change the findings made in the DEIR but rather strengthen the language in the policies.
The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Redding’s staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR . Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
Section 3.4. Changes to the Draft General Plan. During review of the public draft of the General Plan several changes were made to respond to public comments and correct information. The new policy language is included in the Draft EIR revisions and summarized in the Errata section of this FEIR. New figures showing updated information have also been included. None of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible.…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’ s statutory Packet Pg. 633
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
1. Introduction
February 2024 Page 3
responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report.
The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs.
Packet Pg. 634
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 635
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
February 2024 Page 3
2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Redding) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.
This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City’s responses to each comment.
Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of t
he DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency
Date of
Comment Page No.
Agencies & Organizations
A1 California Highway Patrol Redding Area 8/15/2023 5
A2 California Highway Patrol Redding Area 8/21/2023 11
A3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8/25/2023 26 A4 California Geological Survey 8/25/2023 41
A5 Wintu Audubon Society 8/26/2023 47
A6 Shasta County Health and Human Services 8/28/2023 56 A7 Shasta Environmental Alliance, North State Climate Action and the Shasta Group of Sierra Club 8/28/2023 63 A8 Bella Vista Water District 8/28/2023 78
Residents/Individuals
Planning Commission Hearing
R1 Viktoria Peterson 8/6/2023 89
R2 Anonymous 8/8/2023 93
R3 Cameron Middleton 8/8/2023 97
R4 Michele Goedert 8/8/2023 103
R5 Aaron Hatch 8/08/2023 107
Comments Received during the Comment Period
R6 Anonymous 8/13/2023 113
R7 Anonymous 8/14/2023 117
R8 John Livingston 8/14/2023 123
R9 Anonymous 8/26/2023 127
R10 Rebecca Evans 8/26/2023 131
R11 Ron Dykstra 8/27/2023 135
R12 Cathy Anderson 8/272023 139
R13 Sharon 8/28/2023 143
R14 Dawn Smith 8/31/2023 147
Packet Pg. 636
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency
Date of
Comment Page No.
Comments Received After Close of the Comment Period
R15 Terri Lhuillier 11/14/23 151
R16 David Ledger, Shasta Environmental Alliance 12/19/23 155
Packet Pg. 637
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 5
LETTER A1 – California Highway Patrol Redding Area (4 pages)
Packet Pg. 638
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 639
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 7
Packet Pg. 640
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 641
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 9
A1. Response to Comments from California Highway Patrol Special Projects Section , dated August 15, 2023.
A1-1 The Special Projects Section (SPS) notes they have received the environmental impact document from the State Clearinghouse (SCH). SPS directs CHP Redding Area to assess the General Plan Update DEIR’s potential impact on local operations and public safety by using the attached checklist SPS provided. SPS states that if departmental input is deemed advisable, write comments to the lead agency and email to the SCH by August 28, 2023. SPS notes that for project tracking, they must be notified of the assessment, including negative reports.
Comments from California Highway Patrol Redding Area have been received and response to their comments can be seen in Letter A2, comments A2-1 through A2-34.
Packet Pg. 642
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 643
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 11
LETTER A2 – California Highway Patrol Redding Area (7 pages)
Packet Pg. 644
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 645
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 13
Packet Pg. 646
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 647
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 15
Packet Pg. 648
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 649
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 17
Packet Pg. 650
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 651
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 19
A2. Response to Comments California Highway Patrol Redding Area, dated August 21, 2023 A2-1 California Highway Patrol (CHP) Redding Area states they have re- reviewed the Environmental Impact Document for the proposed project, assessing traffic safety and congestion issues related to increased housing development. CHP Redding Area comments that from previous concerns expressed, only “Increased Traffic” and “Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety” on local roads were addressed.
CHP Redding Area is referencing comments made in their previous comments, dated June 10, 2022, which was submitted during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) period which started on May 13, 2022, and ended on June 17, 2022. Please refer to the responses from comments A2-2 through A2-34.
A2-2 CHP Redding Area appreciates the considerations given to establishing and planning roadways of sufficient size and design to accommodate increased traffic in addition to pedestrians, bicyclists, heavy trucks, and buses is appreciated.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A2-3 CHP Redding Area states that use of congestion relief traffic control devices would be beneficial in the planning and expansion of the City.
This comment is directed to the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update includes policies regarding traffic control devices such as Policy CDD16E, CDD17D, and T1E. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A2-4 CHP Redding Area states that the proposed project would place increase demand on CHP Redding Area’s resources due to the increase of vehicular traffic on State Route (SR) 299, SR-273, Interstate 5 (I- 5) and unincorporated county roads with Shasta County . CHP Redding Area states the proposed project is near state routes and I -5, which are already experiencing congestion during peak periods and special events in Redding and Shasta County and thus could negatively impact CHP Redding Area operations, necessitating additional traffic safety control measures to mitigate traffic congestion and collisions.
As indicated in Impact TRANS- 1 on page 5.16-3 5 of the DEIR, the City would require all future development under the proposed project to go through a review of the roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the area surrounding the future development project to ensure that these future projects do not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting all travel modes. As there are no site- specific designs/projects the General Plan Update, it would be speculative to analyze impacts at this time. At the time future developments are proposed, subsequent analysis would evaluate these sites for Packet Pg. 652
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
consistency with the C ity’s plans including the Redding Traffic Guidelines and Vehicle Congestion Management Program Countywide. Therefore, if there is a need to expand roadways, pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, at the time a future project is proposed, such expansions would need to go through subsequent review by applicable agencies in the City to ensure consistency with the City’s circulation plans.
Related to this and subsequent comments, it should be noted that the project does not include amendments to the existing “General Plan Diagram” which establishes the various land uses and intensity of those uses in the City. As such, additional development beyond that provided be the 2000- 2020 General Plan Diagram is not proposed by the General Plan Update.
A2-5 CHP Redding Area states that the proposed project would potentially increase traffic congestion and response times to calls for service due to the proposed addition of several miles of roadway that would fall under the jurisdiction of CHP Redding Area.
CEQA no longer considers automobile delay or traffic congestion as an environmental impact (SB 743). As indicated in Impact PS-1 (fire protection) on page 5.15-18 and Impact PS-3 (police protection) on page 5.15 -27 of the DEIR, states that although no specific development proposals are directly associated with the proposed project, future development would result in an increase in population. Therefore, an increase in population resulting from the proposed project would result in an increase in services which could require the development or expansion of new facilities to support the demand for these services. However, Impact PS-1 and Impact PS-3 of the DEIR cite that the General Plan Update’s policies require project applicants ensure that there are adequate fire protection, emergency medical response services, and police services for proposed development. In addition, when the construction or expansion of facilities to accommodate additional personnel or equipment could become necessary, CEQA review and the General Plan Update provisions would all be required. Therefore, all future development envisioned by the proposed project would be required to ensure that fire and police protection services are adequate for existing and future residents in the areas.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
A2-6 CHP Redding Area comments on Section 5.16.1.2 which projects a 20 to 30 percent increase of vehicle traffic on various state routes. The CHP Redding Area states that the additional traffic flow on the main thoroughfares has not been addressed. CHP Redding Area recommends that California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) should be consulted on the development of additional traffic lanes and congestion relief on the state highways referenced.
CEQA no longer considers automobile delay or traffic congestion as an environmental impact (SB 743). The proposed project includes Policy T8A which states the City will collaborate with Caltrans and Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) to construct Packet Pg. 653
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 21
State facilities within the City, including SR 299, SR 44, SR 273, I- 5, and intersections/interchanges, in line with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element, this policy is listed on page 5.16- 33 of the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A2-7 CHP Redding Area states the projected increase in traffic will increase the calls for service related to the CHP Redding Area patrol jurisdiction.
Impact PS-3 on page 5.15 -27 of the DEIR, cites General Plan Update’s policies which require project applicants and the City to ensure that there are adequate police services for existing and proposed development. Impact PS-3 states that although future applicants would need to comply with proposed policies, the exact nature of potential new or expanded facilities necessitated by the growth expected under the proposed project is unknown, making it difficult to determine project -specific environmental impacts ; therefore, p otential impacts will be identified during the facility planning process. No changes to the DEIR are required.
A2-8 CH
P Redding Area is concerned about increased vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic that is brought on by additional housing units and roadways. CHP Redding Area is concerned about the roadway’s capacity to accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at concurrent times while operating in a safe manner.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-9 CHP Redding Area states the projected increase in traffic congestion and calls for service will negatively impact CHP Redding Area’s ability to respond to calls for services in a timely manner.
See response to comment A2-7.
A2-10 CHP Redding Area states that there are state routes (SR- 44, SR-299, SR-273 & I-5) that jointly serve as bike routes and with a projected 20 to 30 percent increase of vehicular traffic cited in the proposed project, CHP Redding Area suggests rerouting bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians from these controlled roadways to ensure safety.
Impact TRANS-3 on page 5.16 -38 of the DEIR, roadway hazards are assessed at the project level, with potential hazards analyzed through environmental review or application review. The City of Redding Public Works Department reviews and approves plans for streets, highways, alleys, traffic signals, and public improvements, in consultation with other agencies as appropriate, before construction. Impact TRANS-3 also lists policies from the proposed Transportation Element that would support the design of a transportation system that is safe for all modes of travel. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
Packet Pg. 654
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
A2-11 CHP Redding Area comments that a review of the current truck routes and approved hazardous materials routes that deliver goods and services to local retailers and residential customers would need to be conducted due to the theoretical increase of goods and services deliveries from additional housing and roadways. CHP Redding Area adds that the capacity of roadways needs to be evaluated from increased truck traffic with increased size and weight associated with heavy truck traffic.
Impact HAZ-1, starting on page 5.9-23 in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DEIR analyzes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the operation state of the proposed project. As mentioned, General Plan Update Policy PS9A requires new developments to incorporate appropriate project designs and building materials to protect employees and adjacent land uses from hazardous materials or waste, and Policy PS9D aims to reduce the risk of exposure t o the public and s ensitive environmental areas by routing hazardous materials along transportation corridors, would reduce impacts. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in substantial hazards to the public due to the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous material and impacts would be less than significant. See response to comment A2 -6 in regard to traffic.
A2-12 CHP Redding Area comments that Section 5.16.1.2 projects a 20 to 30 percent increase of vehicle traffic on various state routes. The CHP Redding Area states that the additional traffic flow on the main thoroughfares has not been addressed. CHP Redding Area recommends that California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) should be consulted on the development of additional traffic lanes and congestion relief on the state highways referenced.
See response to comment A2-7.
A2-13 CHP Redding Area states the projected increase in traffic will increase the calls for service related to the CHP Redding Area patrol jurisdiction.
See response to comment A2-5.
A2-14 CHP Redding oversees school bus operations in Shasta County, overseeing Bus Driver certification, School Bus Stops, and collisions. With increased housing and new roadways, school bus routes need revision, including a review of new bus stops by CHP Redding.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-15 CHP Redding Area is responsible for school bus driver testing and licensing within Shasta County and is concerned about how the increased development of housing would increase the workload for CHP Redding Area.
Packet Pg. 655
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 23
A dditional workload is not a CEQA issue ; therefore, this impact would not be analyzed within the DEIR; however as mentioned in Chapter 3, Project Description, on page 3-18, the General Plan Update is expected to result in a total of 9781 employees, 483 from educational institutions. The proposed project will not increase growth or growth rates beyond the current General Plan.
A2-16 CHP Redding Area top priority is ensuring the safety of children at school bus stops, ensuring they are suitable for vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and school bus use simultaneously.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-17 CHP Redding Area states that they are responsible for 100 state properties and facilities and to respond to several State of California Agencies within the City of Redding. CHP Redding Area comments that increased housing and new roadways from the projected project would increase congestion and increase calls for services.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-18 CHP Redding Area is concerned about the potential of the City limits being expanded which would cause a reduction of CHP Redding Area jurisdiction on local roads.
The expansion of city limits and correlation to the jurisdiction of the CHP Redding Area on local roads in not a CEQA-issue. Subsequent analysis as part of the annexation process will be required between the baseline and planning horizon therefore making any analysis now premature. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A2-19 CHP Redding Area comments that expanding the City limits would require collaboration between CHP Redding Communication Center Operations (RCC) and the Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency (ShasCom) to appropriately map, route, and assign emergency resources, calls for service, and to ensure 911 cellular phone calls and texts to 911 are routed through the correct agency.
See response to comment A2-18 and A2-5.
A2-20 CHP Redding Area comments that expanding the City limits would be a large undertaking as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems would need to be updated for both agencies.
The expansion of city limits and CAD’s workload is not a CEQA-issue. See response to comment A2-18 and A2-5.
A2-21 CHP Redding Area comments that with the reduction of jurisdiction from the city limits being expanded, the CHP Redding Area beat assignments would need to be revised to ensure patrol personnel are properly allocated to regions of similar call volume. The CHP Packet Pg. 656
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Redding Area comments that this would be a large undertaking and requires several months of planning and coordination with ShasCom.
The CHP Redding coordination with ShasCom is not a CEQA -issue. See response to comment A2-18 and A2-5.
A2-22 CHP Redding Area comments that similar issues of resource strain would occur with Redding Fire and CalFire. Since all agencies work together, when one agency is strained, often all of them are trying to pick up the slack from another.
The DEIR's Impact PS -1 and Impact PS -3 state that project applicants must ensure adequate fire protection, emergency medical response, and police services for existing and proposed development. If facilities are built or expanded, CEQA review and General Plan Update provisions will be required. Future development plans must ensure adequate fire and police protection services for residents, without any changes to the DEIR required.
See response to comment A2-18 and A2-5.
A2-23 CHP Redding Area states the DEIR omits law enforcement agencies from the “other law enforcement headquarters” list and provides a list of enforcement agencies.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Section 5.15.2.1, Environmental Setting. These additions do not change the determinations made in the discussion. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
A2-24 CHP Redding Area is resubmitting their previous comments, dated June 10, 2022, which was submitted during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) period which started on May 13, 2022, and ended on June 17, 2022.
See response to comments A2- 25 through A 2-34 which address all comments in the resubmitted letter.
A2-25 CHP Redding Area states that the proposed project would place increase demand on CHP Redding Area’s resources due to the increase of vehicular traffic on State Route (SR) 299, SR-273, I-5 and unincorporated county roads with Shasta County . CHP Redding Area states the proposed project is near state routes and I -5, which are already experiencing congestion during peak periods and special events in Redding and Shasta County and thus could negatively impact CHP Redding Area operations, necessitating additional traffic safety control measures to mitigate traffic congestion and collisions.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-26 CHP Redding Area states that the proposed project would potentially increase traffic congestion and response times to calls for service due to the proposed addition of several miles of roadway that would fall under the jurisdiction of CHP Redding Area.
Packet Pg. 657
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 25
See response to comment A2-5.
A2-27 CHP Redding Area is concerned about increased vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic that is brought on by additional housing units and roadways. CHP Redding Area is concerned about the roadway’s capacity to accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at concurrent times while operating in a safe manner.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-28 CHP Redding Area states that the proposed project would potentially increase traffic congestion and response times to calls for service, negatively impacting CHP Redding Area’s ability to respond to calls for service in a timely manner.
See response to comment A2-5.
A2-29 CHP Redding Area comments that a review of the current truck routes that deliver goods and services to local retailers and residential customers would need to be conducted due to the theoretical increase of goods and services deliveries from additional housing and roadways. CHP Redding Area adds that the capacity of roadways needs to be evaluated from increased truck traffic with increased size and weight associated with heavy truck traffic.
See response to comment A2-5.
A2-30 CHP Redding Area is concerned about the increase of vehicular traffic and housing units from the proposed project and the strain of CHP Redding Area resources due to their responsibility to oversee school bus routes and establish bus stops.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-31 CHP Redding Area is responsible for school bus driver testing and licensing within Shasta County and is concerned about how the increased development of housing would increase the workload for CHP Redding Area.
See response to comment A2-15.
A2-32 CHP Redding Area states that they respond to several State of California Agencies within the City of Redding. CHP Redding Area comments that increased housing and new roadways from the projected project would increase congestion and increase calls for services.
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-33 CHP Redding Area states that they are responsible for 100 state properties and facilities and to respond to several State of California Agencies within the City of Redding.
Packet Pg. 658
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
See response to comment A2-4.
A2-34 CHP Redding Area comments that expanding the City limits would require collaboration between CHP Redding Communication Center Operations (RCC) and the Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency (ShasCom) to appropriately map, route, and assign emergency resources, calls for service, and to ensure 911 cellular phone calls and texts to 911 are routed through the correct agency.
See response to comment A2-18 and A2-5.
Packet Pg. 659
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 27
LETTER A3 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife (7 pages)
Packet Pg. 660
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 661
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 29
Packet Pg. 662
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 663
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 31
Packet Pg. 664
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 665
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 33
Packet Pg. 666
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 667
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 35
A3. Response to Comments from California Department of Fish and Wildlife , dated August 25, 2023.
A3-1 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) explains their role as an agency that provides biological expertise during a public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. CDFW has made these comments to assist the City of Redding in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.
The City of Redding appreciate the CDFW comments and recommendations that may assist the City of Redding in adequately analyzing and minimizing impacts to biological resources.
A3-2 CDFW states that while 84 special -status species have been observed and reported, this number does not account for the total number of species with the “potential to occur” because species can occur while not being observed. CDFW recommends that the statements made in the Biological Resources Section about special status species be revised to reflect that some species have documented occurrences and there are more species with potential to occur.
As mentioned in Appendix 5 -4, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, Section 1.2, Purpose, lists only species that fall into one of the listed groups were considered for this assessment. Other species without special status that are sometimes found in the database or literature searches were not included in this analysis. No changes to the DEIR are required.
A3-3 CDFW comments that the DEIR does not specifically address biological resources with potential to occur in the areas mapped as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ growth areas. CDFW recommends more comprehensive biological studies be performed to identify impacts in these areas for the final EIR.
As noted on page 5.4 -1 in Section 5.4, Biological Resources , the DEIR discloses that information and analysis focuses on the sphere of influence (SOI). The referenced growth areas are contained within the existing SOI. Annexation and development within these growth areas will require more analysis as part of the annexation, prezoning, and development processes. Further, the nature of biological resources may change between the baseline and planning horizon therefore making any analysis now premature. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A3-4 CDFW states the Crotch's bumble bee, a species whose range bisects the city, is protected under the Fish and Game Code, §§ 2074.2 and 2085, and it is illegal to import, export, take, possess, purchase, or sell CESA -listed species or their parts or products. CDFW states that the area in and around the City of Redding contains a potentially suitable habitat Packet Pg. 668
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
for the Crotch bumble bee. CDFW comments that land modification, ground disturbance and habitat removal all have potential to significantly impact local bumble bee populations.
CDFW states that there could be potentially significant impacts associated with activities included throughout the General Plan Update. CDFW recommends including Crotch’s bumble bee in the special -status invertebrate species lists and including methods for promoting native pollinator species throughout pertinent sections of the DEIR.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the DEIR via the revisions to Section 5.4, Biological Resources. These revisions do not change the determinations made as Impact BIO-1 starting on page 5.4 -30 of the DEIR that compliance with the policies and regulations under the ESA, MBTA, CESA, California Fish and Game Code, CWA, and CNPPA would reduce potential impacts to special-status species associated with new development allowed under General Plan to a less than significant level. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
A3-5 CDFW recommends including Crotch's bumble bee in special-status invertebrate species lists and promoting native pollinator species in the DEIR. CDFW encourages using native trees, shrubs, and flowering plants for future revegetation to benefit California's insect pollinators. CDFW discourages using non- native vegetation in actions like development areas, city parks, public open spaces, and habitat revegetation.
See response to comment A3-4.
A3-6 CDFW encourages the use of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) website to see the native species occur in a particular area. CDFW states that the CNPS has a tool called Calscape that generates a list of native plants that grow in an area based on a specific address and can be used to develop a planning palate for landscaping plans.
As noted on page 11 in Appendix 5.4 -1, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, of the DEIR the CNPS’ electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California was used as a resource to identify sensitive biological resources and/or special status species .
No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A3-7 CDFW recommends the City include a policy to not only maintain linkages but strive to create additional connectivity corridors throughout the City, specifically east- west connectivity corridors.
This comment is directed to the General Plan Update. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration A3-8 CDFW states that while Impact BIO-4 identifies the Sacramento River, Churn Creek, and Stillwater Creek as providing north -south habitat connectivity within the City, the California Biogeographic Information System (BIOS) identified an Essential Connectivity Packet Pg. 669
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 37
Area (ECA) west of Redding. CDFW recommends there be a focus on east and west movement opportunities in order to create linkages specifically to the nearest ECA.
T he nearest ECA appears to be near Whiskeytown Lake and the ridges connecting to that area are well outside of the City of Redding; however, the City maintains east-west linkages from the Sacramento River westward along Clear Creek, Olney Creek, Canyon Hollow Creek, and Canyon Creek. The sections of all these streams located in the City are protected by the City’s Greenway policies that largely prohibit development, those helping to maintain habitat connectivity . Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Section 5.4, Biological Resources, these changes do not change the determinations made in Impact BIO-4. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
A3-9 CDFW states that there are at least three total fish barriers, several partial fish barriers, and numerous more un assessed crossings occur within the City limits. CDFW recommends incorporating policies that include assessing and planning for additional aquatic connectivity opportunities into the General Plan Update.
The proposed Natural Resources Element includes that policies that protect aquatic connectivity such as Policy NR4H, NR5A, and NR5B . No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A3-10 CDFW states that implementing wildlife crossings and infrastructure can reduce wildlife- vehicle collisions, improving road safety for Redding citizens and local wildlife.
See response to comment A3-7. No changes to the DEIR are required.
A3-11 CDFW states that the Primary Growth Areas have been classified as oak woodlands.
Policy NR6A in the DEIR aims to preserve native oaks, particularly valley oaks, in development projects. However, CDFW believes that this policy and the City of Redding's Tree Ordinance are not e ffectively conserving oak woodlands throughout the city. The significance determination in BIO- 5 does not support the inefficiency of policy implementation, as impacts would be less than significant. This inefficiency has been made prevalent through City project approvals that permanently remove oak woodland habitat without adequate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation proposed by the City.
T he proposed General Plan’s Natural Resources Element indicates that areas designated as “Greenway” cover over approximately 11,000 acres within the City limits and the proposed “growth areas” , approximately 4,600 acres of which are in the Open Space Zoning District and open space easements. These areas cover approximately 17 square miles within the City and its identified growth areas, primarily containing oak woodland habitat. No specific recommendations were identified by the commenter, and therefore no additional analysis or information is added to these sections. As this comment does Packet Pg. 670
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A3-12 CDFW recommends a review, assessment, and amendment of the Tree Ordinance to assess current standards and programs for protecting, preserving, restoring, and replanting native trees. This should occur before finalizing the updated General Plan. The amendment should include specific mitigation strategies for permanent oak woodland removal and enforcement regulations to ensure effective conservation. Identifying specific mitigation areas and conservation methods, such as conservation easements, would strengthen local policies and goals for conserving oak woodlands in the City of Redding.
This comment requests changes to policies in the Natural Resources Element and the Redding Municipal Code ; however, this is not the purpose or within the power of the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration
A3-13 CDFW recommends that there be a revision to all the policies about oak woodlands to include oak woodland habitats as a whole rather than individual trees.
As mentioned in Impact AG-3 starting on page 5.2-11 in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the DEIR although policies General Plan Update would help to minimize impacts to loss of woodland and other habitat types, and result in the planting of trees, the proposed project could potentially convert forested areas to non- forested uses to accommodate future demand. This impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable due to the future growth expected to occur under the proposed project. As this comment requests changes to the proposed project (General Plan Update) rather than inadequacies to the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A3-14 CDFW states that Policy NR6B requires the City to identify suitable areas for planting native trees to offset development impacts on woodland resources. CDFW suggests revising the policy to remove the word "consideration," as it is crucial for preserving native habitats and mitigating future impacts, as identified in BIO-6 of the DEIR.
As this comment requests changes to the proposed project (General Plan Update) rather than inadequacies to the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A3-15 The DEIR states that no feasible mitigation measures exist as the City cannot control development or mitigation outside the City. CDFW disagrees, stating that the City can require mitigation for impacts within City limits, including land preservation, enhancement, and conservation. CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to consider and describe all feasible mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts. CDFW recommends Packet Pg. 671
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 39
incorporating feasible mitigation measures into the DEIR, as the City has a responsibility to prevent avoidable environmental damage by requiring alternative or mitigation measures.
The analysis in Impact BIO-6 starting on page 5.4-37 in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR presents a conservative analysis since this impact considers the proposed project, along with past, present, and foreseeable projects, and whether they would cause cumulative impacts on biological resources. Although the City can implement land preservations, enhancement, and conservation, the proposed project by nature is meant to guide the city into future growth which could result in the cumulative loss of habitat and sensitive natural communities. Therefore , there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to less than significant unless development is prohibited which is not feasible or practical for a City’s General Plan Update.
A3-16 CDFW is interested in collaborating with the City of Redding and fostering a relationship that works to preserve Redding’s biological resources through the implementation of local policies and ordinances. CDFW states that CEQA mandates incorporating environmental impact reports and negative declarations into a database for future environmental determinations. Report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as per Policy NR4C of the General Plan.
Policy NR4C requires updating data on significant biological value areas in Planning Areas to inform community, conserve resources, and manage development activities effectively.
The City of Redding appreciate the CDFW comments and recommendations that may assist the City of Redding in adequately analyzing and minimizing impacts to biological resources.
Packet Pg. 672
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 673
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 41
LETTER A4 – California Geological Survey (3 pages)
Packet Pg. 674
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 675
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 43
Packet Pg. 676
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 677
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 45
A4. Response to Comments from California Geological Survey, dated August 25, 2023.
A4-1 The California Geological Survey (CGS) comments that the DEIR states that landslide susceptibility is present in the western, northern, and northeastern portions of the City.
The commenter would like the DEIR to provide an explanation as to why these areas of Redding may be susceptible to landslides. The commenter would like to see a scale to indicate the thresholds used to determine relative landslide susceptibility for Figure 5.7-3.
See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments.
A4-2 The commenter says that Figure 5.7-3 have been developed using the CGS Map Sheet 58:
Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility Map which was developed at a statewide scale 1:1,775,000 and insufficient for site specific use. If the CGS Map Sheet 58 was used, the commenter suggests noting the scale, a reference, and if no other analysis of shallow - seated landslides was performed, to note that the information on the map does not reflect shallow-seated landslide susceptibility.
See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments.
A4-3 The commenter states that the DEIR should be updated to address the comments A4 -1 and A4-2. Furthermore, the commenter providers an alternative source to fix Figure 5.7 - 3 if CGS Map Sheet 58 used.
See response to comment A4-1 and A4-2.
A4-4 The commenter provides sources that CGS provides on their website to update any relevant information in the Geology and Soils section of the DEIR.
The City of Redding appreciate the CGS comments and recommendations that may assist the City of Redding in adequately analyzing and minimizing impacts to geological resources.
Packet Pg. 678
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank,
Packet Pg. 679
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 47
LETTER A5 – Wintu Audubon Society (6 pages)
Packet Pg. 680
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 681
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 49
Packet Pg. 682
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 683
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 51
Packet Pg. 684
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 685
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 53
A5. Response to Comments from Wintu Audubon Society, dated August 26, 2023.
A5-1 WAS is referencing comments made in their previous comments, dated March 27, 2023, which was submitted during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) period which started on May 13, 2022, and ended on June 17, 2022.
See response to comments A-5 through A-8 addressing this letter.
A5-2 Wintu Auburn Society (WAS) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2045 Redding General Plan Update, but its scope is limited due to the short, 45-day review period chosen by the City. Projects of wide public interest, importance, and complexity demand a longer comment period to allow comprehensive review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows comment periods up to 60 days , and the shorter 45-day period established by the City limits the public's ability to review the EIR comprehensively. The authors strongly recommend extending the comment period to 60 days, allowing a more comprehensive review of all environmental impact conclusions for all general plan elements, including the Land Use Element's implications for biological resources.
See response to comment R6-1.
A5-3 WAS states that the Impacts BIO 1, 2, 3, and 4 report that there will be no significant impact on biological resources partly due to Natural Resources Element policies and Parks, Trails and Recreation Element policies. However, the inclusion of qualifying language in these policies diminishes the requirement to consider the protection of biological resources, assuming that no impact will result unreliable.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see P
ublic Review Draft General Plan dated November, 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan, in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element. In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR.
The General Plan includes a specific goal and several policies aimed at protecting biological resources. Until such things as a specific plan or actual development projects are proposed the EIR should not engage in speculation about information that may not be known until a later phase, when specific development applications are submitted . All potential future development that is subject to discretionary approval would be required to undergo environmental and development review processes prior to project approval. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
Packet Pg. 686
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
A5-4 WAS states that Impact BIO-6 suggests that cumulative impacts on biological resources could be significant and suggests mitigation measures. However, policies of Natural Resources and Parks, Trails and Recreation should be strengthened to ensure due process for protecting biological resources. For example, Policy NR4F should be rephrased to "retain city- owned properties containing environmentally sensitive areas," instead of "Prioritize retaining city - owned properties." If retention is not possible, a finding that impacts are not significant must be made for other documentable reasons or additional mitigation applied.
See response to com ment A3-14. This comment request changes to policies in the Natural Resources Element; however this is not the purpose or within the power for the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A5-5 WAS reviewed the Draft General Plan Update's Natural Resources Element and Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element, highlighting the language in the protective measures and goals. WAS states that these measures aim to prevent or reduce negative impacts on natural resources from development. However, permissive language has been inserted, allowing developers latitude that is inappropriate for protective measures or mitigation. WAS suggests revisions to policies and goals in the draft Natural Resources Element.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see P
ublic Review Draft General Plan dated November, 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan, in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element. In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR.
A5-6 WAS states that the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report will likely refer to most proposed protections as mitigation. WAS states that the permissive nature of General Plan language can lead to abuse, ineffective mitigation, or incomplete protection of natural or biological resources. WAS states that the General Plan should be proactive and directive, with exceptions limited to infeasible measures and alternative effective protections, as per CEQA documentation, and exceptions should be made based on findings.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see Public Review Draft General Plan dated November, 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan, in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, Packet Pg. 687
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 55
and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element. In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR.
Since this DEIR is a programmatic level document, it cannot be determined what project- specific environmental impacts would occur. Future development facilities under the General Plan would be subject to subsequent CEQA review that would be prepared which would include a public hearing process and be subject to discretionary legislative action. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A5-7 WAS states that the Parks, Trails and Recreation Element states that a Regional River Parkway is envisioned as a multijurisdictional project to maximize the river's recreational and economic potential. However, the statement is questionable as it has not been part of any curr ent General Plan or Specific Plan element or City policy document. The economic potential of the parkway must be determined by the results of the Riverfront Specific Plan update, which is just starting. The conclusion that there ar e economic benefits of the parkway is premature to assume.
Determining the economic benefits of a potential future river parkway is not a matter subject to C
EQA review b the DEIR. WAS may wish to note, however, that the 2000 -2020 General Plan Recreation Element Policy R1A calls for development of such a plan. Further the 2004 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan also calls for development of the plan which is not exclusively dependent upon the outcome of the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan update. All potential future development that is subject to discretionary approval would be required to undergo environmental and design review prior to project approval. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A5-8 WAS states the revisions of the General Plan Element language have been poorly documented and circulated since their original distribution. WAS states t he City's General Plan Update website lists versions of various elements, but it is difficult to determine if these sections contain only the original language or have been revised. WAS states this has caused confusion and made it difficult to provide up-to -date comments on the revisions. WAS urges the Commission and Council to pause the process and allow current versions of All Elements to be redistributed to the public, with changes clearly noted and a reasonable time for full public review and comment.
The General Plan has undergone several iterations, including initial draft documents, d
iscussions with the Planning Commission, and final draft Elements . Further, multiple workshops reviewing the draft General Plan Elements have been held by the Planning Packet Pg. 688
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Commission to solicit public input. These changes resulting from these efforts can be viewed on the City’s website
https://www.cityofredding.gov/government/departments/development_services/planning/ general_plan.php. Changes to each draft document are identified.
Packet Pg. 689
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 57
LETTER A6 – Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (4 pages)
Packet Pg. 690
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 691
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 59
Packet Pg. 692
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 693
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 61
A6. Response to Comments from Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency , dated August 28, 2023.
A6-1 The commente r thanks the lead agency for the opportunity to provide input on the General Plan Update EIR and states that the Group will highlight suggestions throughout the letter.
The City of Redding appreciates the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Shasta County HHSA) comments and recommendations that may assist the City of Redding. Please refer to response to comments below.
A6-2 The commentator appreciates that the proposed plan aims to make communities more healthy and active and cites the Center of Disease Control in how active communities helps increase physical activity and create better places to live.
The General Plan Update includes policies aimed at increasing accessibility to active commuting such as Policy CDD11A, Policy T1A, Policy T2A, Policy T3A, and Policy T7A. Further, the Community Health, Wellness, and environmental Justice Element includes numerous policies to address access to facilities, active recreation areas, etc.
A6-3 The Shasta County HHSA suggests strengthening Policy NR 12B's language to “require when appropriate” instead of “encouraging” new development on prime soils and/or Farmland of Local Importance and allow residents and community members to grow local food produce through community gardens, edible landscape gardens, community food forests, or similar projects.
This change to Policy NR 12B would not change the significant and unavoidable level of significance determined by the DEIR for Impact AG -1. As mentioned, in Impact AG-1, on page 5.2 -11 in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the DEIR states that the effectiveness and extent of future projects opting in to agricultural conservation easements (or community gardens, edible landscape gardens, and community food forests) as mitigation measures cannot be determined, making their impact significant an d unavoidable. This commenter request changes to Policy NR12B from the General Plan Update. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A6-4 The commenter is concerned over impacts to historical resources and encourages the City to adopt a policy and protocol for tribal consultation with Wintu and other impacted tribes. As well as mentions how government can disturb or damage sacred sites and cause health risks amongst Indigenous peoples.
Packet Pg. 694
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
The addition of a new policy would not change the significant and unavoidable level of significance determined by the DEIR for Impact CULT -1. As mentioned, in Impact CULT-1, on page 5.5 -21 in Section 5.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the DEIR states that the project's specific impacts are currently unknown, and future assessments will involve a project -specific environmental review. However, significant potential impacts to historic resources may occur, making these impacts significant and unavoidable. In addition, the General Plan Update includes Policy R4C which promotes and encourages consultation and partnership with Wintu tribes and historical research groups and others for the protection, improvement, and preservation of archaeological, paleontological, historical and cultural resources in parks. Policy EJ1G calls the City to explore effective consultation practices, and Policy EJ8D addresses supporting local Wintu tribe’s local traditions and customs related to food gathering. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A6-5 The comment er states that because greenhouse gas effects will be significant and unavoidable without mitigation that the City should improve its compliance with SB 1383 and improve food waste education as well as provide food waste collection services to reduce landfill trash and provide other benefits. The commenter also states that composting organic waste releases less greenhouse gases than landfilling organic waste.
The commenter’s recommendation will be taken under consideration by the City of Redding. As discussed on page 5.17-45 of Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, the City of Redding currently implements the requirements of AB 1826 for mandatory commercial organics recycling and is currently facilitating outreach and education efforts to implement SB 1383 and added organics recycling services in the Winter of 2023.
A6-6 The commenter says that the city should strengthen the language of Policy NR14A to ensure that the city develops and adopts a climate resiliency plan, and states that CA public officials identify climate change as a serious risk.
This change to the Policy NR14A would not change the significant and unavoidable level of significance determined by the DEIR for Impact GHG- 1. As mentioned, in Impact GHG-1, on page 5.8 -14 in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gases, the DEIR states that due to population and employment growth anticipated from the General Plan Update , it is uncertain if implementation of the policy would reduce GHG emissions significantly.
Therefore, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. This commenter request changes to Policy NR14A from the General Plan Update. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 695
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 63
LETTER A7 – Shasta Environmental Alliance (10 pages)
Packet Pg. 696
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 697
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 65
Packet Pg. 698
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 699
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 67
Packet Pg. 700
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 701
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 69
Packet Pg. 702
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 703
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 71
Packet Pg. 704
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 705
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 73
A7. Response to Comments from the Shasta Environmental Alliance, North State Climate Action and the Shasta Group of Sierra Club, dated August 28, 2023.
A7-1 The commenters state they and the North State Climate Action and the Shasta Group of Sierra Club are concerned about protecting natural resources in Northern California. The commenters state that they have reviewed Draft EIR of the General Plan and find that it would have great negative effects on the environment, and that changes are needed for the General Plan as it is not strong and tends to be vague, and thus the Draft EIR would have negative effects on the environment, due weak wording in the Draft General Plan.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see Public Review Draft General Plan dated November 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan, in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element. In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR.
A7-2 The commenter criticizes the use of words such as “strive to”, “consider”, and “work to” throughout the General Plan and EIR, and believe the wording for the city to not commit to any strong protections, and believe that the General Plan should be re written with more affirmative words. The commenter states that the wording needs changes to not have a significant negative effect on the environment and state what parts of the General Plan they disagree with.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see Public Review Draft General Plan dated November 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan , in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element. In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR . It is speculative to analyze the impacts without knowing the changes that would be made to the proposed project’s policies.
No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A7-3 The commente r states that they do not accept the proposed General Plan as written, and recommends the city to use the No Project/ Existing General Plan alternative, due to the unenforceable language proposed in the Draft General Plan and EIR.
As mentioned in Chapter 7, Alternatives, in the DEIR, the No Project/Existing General Plan is the only EIR alternative that is specifically required by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) The No Project alternative focuses on the potential result of not updating the General Plan to include changes to state law that have occurred since the adoption of the current plan in 2000. In addition, Packet Pg. 706
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
as noted in Section 7.4.19, conclusion, on page 7 -13 of the DEIR, this alternative would create greater impacts to 13 environmental topics, primarily due to the lack of adoption of new and updated policies that would better mitigate impacts and would generally meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A7-4 The commenter lists Natural Resources Policies NR4A, NR4B, NR4F, NR5A, NR5B, NR5D, NR6A, NR6D, NR6E and recommends removal of words such as “consider undertaking, strive to, avoid, modified, minimize, emphasize retention and replaces the words with more affirmative wording such as prevent, increased, retain, preserve, review, and undertake.
This comment requests changes to policies in the Natural Resources Element; however, this is not the purpose or within the power of the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. See Response A7-2.
A7-5 The commenter states that a policy should be made to require street and parking lot tree planting in new development at a 50% tree canopy cover at 15 years like Sacramento and Chico.
This commenter requests additional policy of the 2045 General Plan. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A7-6 The commenter suggests a change to wording for Policy NR7A from “strive to” to maintain to have stronger language. The commente r changes the wording on Policy NR7C and NR8B to stronger wording from explore options and strive to preserve to enact ordinances and preserve.
The comment er states that if the recommended changes were implemented that negative environmental effects can be reduced, which is important to addressing rare and endangered and sensitive species and other sensitive habitats
See response to comment A7-2.
A7-7 The comment er suggests changes to Policy EJ3E and Policy NR14A to develop and adopt a Climate Action and Resiliency Plan.
See response to comment A6-6.
A7-8 The commenter states that the solutions listed in the General Plan do not go far enough to reduce GHG emissions and recommends that the city work with SRTA to work to reduce transportation related GHG emissions, require the Curry West Landfill to capture and sequester m ethane emissions, and require increased mitigation for the removal of trees during development. The commenter also states the importance of enacting a tree ordinance that mitigates the loss of trees during development and how incorporating these changes would be beneficial to the environment and reduce negative impacts.
Packet Pg. 707
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 75
See response to A6-6. The General Plan Update includes Policy T3A aims to provide timely, cost- effective, and responsive transit services by collaborating with the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) and public transit providers like the Redding Area Bus Authority to plan and implement additional services. Requiring the Curry West Landfill to capture and sequester methane emissions is outside the City’s jurisdiction and power. See response to comment A3 -13 in regard to trees. Policies NR6A, NR6B, N R6C and NR6E address tree removal and the City’s Tree Management Ordinance.
A7-9 The commenter critiques the use of unenforceable words such as "strive to, consider”.
See response to comment A7-2.
A7-10 The commenter applauds the city staff for including the input of different focus groups and collecting suggestions. However, the commenter claims that the city is careful around the wording due to legal reasons, which results in a weak General Plan that has little regulation enforcement.
The wording is again criticized and shows more changes to the wording below.
See response to comment A7-2.
A7-11 The commente r suggests changes to the wording on numerous policies in the Community Development and Design Element to be more enforceable and critiques some policies such as CDD6A as contradicting Goal CDD6.
This commenter requests changes to policies to the General Plan 2045. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A7-12 The commenter states the Conservation Element is required to address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources.
As mentioned on page 4 of the Public Review Draft Introduction, the natural Resources Element which constitutes the mandatory Conservation and Open Space Elements addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A7-13 The commenter replaces “consider updating” with “Update” to Policy NR1A.
See response to comment A7-11.
A7-14 The commenter states the Open Space Element identified as the Natural Resources Element in the General Plan 2045) is specifically required to consider the preservation of natural resources, managed the production of resources, open space for outdoor recreation, and open space for tribal resources.
Packet Pg. 708
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
As mentioned on page 4 of the Public Review Draft Introduction, the Natural Resources Element details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A7-15 The commenter recommends changes to the wording on numerous policies relating to the Natural Resources Element to include enforceable language.
See response to comment A7-2 and A7-11.
A7-16 The commenter recommends adding a new Tree Ordinance that increases Redding’s tree canopy and requires mitigation for the removal of native trees with funds raised used to plant and maintain Redding’s trees.
See response to comments A3-13 and A7-8 in regard to trees.
A7-17 The commenter recommends changing the wording on numerous policies and goals (Goal NR7, Policy NR8B, Policy NR9A, Policy NR11F) to include enforceable language.
This commenter request changes to policies from the 2045 General Plan. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. See response to comment A7-2.
A7-18 The commenter requests changes to wording the Open Space Element (Natural Resources Element) policies and states that we are in a climate emergency that we do not have time to use words like “consider”.
This comment request changes to policies in the DEIR; however, this is not the purpose or within the power for the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. See response to comment A7-2.
A7-19 The commenter requests changing the “consider using” to “use” for Policy EJ4B.
The commenter’s request is accommodated in the Drafty General Plan 2045. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
A7-20 The commenter suggests that a Tree Ordinance be enacted to mitigate tree removal during development and allocate all fees to enhance and maintain Redding's tree canopy. The commenter also suggests changes to the langue in Policy EJ4C to “consider establishing” to “establish”.
See response to comments A7-8 and A7-19.
Packet Pg. 709
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 77
A7-21 The commenter mentions they do not mean to disparage the entire proposed General Plan Update, there is a lot that they agree with, however it must have more enforceable wording, and not doing so would lessen the input of focus groups that the city communicated with and commend the city staff who worked on the project.
See response to comments A7-2 and A5-8.
A7-22 The commenter again mentions that the General Plan should be more enforceable and refrain from using unenforceable language and reiterates that the city should go with the No Project Alternative/ Existing General Plan Alternative due to unenforceable language in the DEIR and proposed General Plan.
S ee response to comments A7-2 and A7-3.
Packet Pg. 710
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
LETTER A8 – Bella Vista Water District (6 pages)
Packet Pg. 711
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 79
Packet Pg. 712
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 713
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 81
Packet Pg. 714
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 715
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 83
Packet Pg. 716
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 717
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 85
A8. Response to Comments from the Bella Vista Water District, dated August 28, 2023.
A8-1 The Bella Vista Water District (BVWD) is requesting a review and comment on the Draft 2023-2045 General Plan, primarily focusing on the Public Facilities and Services Element and Draft Natural Resources Element. The BVWD service area spans over 53 square miles, serving customers within the city.
The City of Redding appreciates the BVWD comments and recommendations that may assist the City of Redding in adequately analyzing and minimizing impacts to infrastructure services.
A8-2 The BVWD states that the Draft Public Facilities and Services Element (Version 3, April 18, 2023) raises questions about the application of goals to water service agencies, except for goal PF1C, which only considers the City's infrastructure system for impacts and mitigation. This BVWD states that this raises concerns about the assumption that BVWD will provide water service for all development within its service area.
Policies CDD2B requires that all new development provide for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services, as appropriate. Policy CDD2C requires that “will serve” letters be obtained from service providers prior to approval of a discretionary development permits or building permits. Further, Policy CDD2E calls for coordinating with service providers to ensure that all public facilities and services required by development are available. These policies pertain to service providers including BVWD and Clear Creek Community Services District and other providers. In addition, as noted on pages 5.17-20 of the DEIR under the Water Providers subheading the DEIR notes the Bella Vista Water District serves a portion of the northeast Planning Area in addition to the unincorporated area of Bella Vista.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A8-3 The District has over 6,300 active water service connections, half of which are within the City's limits. The Municipal Water Sources section briefly discusses the City's water sources, including the Sacramento River, Spring Creek Conduit, Muletown Conduit, Whiskeytown Lake, and wells. BVWD is not directly mentioned, despite thousands of connections by city citizens receiving water solely from BVWD.
This comment refers to the General Plan rather than the DEIR. Page 5.17 -25 of the DEIR provides information regarding the Bella Vista Water District. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A8-4 The commenter asserts that there is no discussion on water supply reliability in shortage years, despite significant differences in the City ’s access to available supply compared to BVWD. The City has a Sacramento River Settlement Contract with preferable shortage Packet Pg. 718
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
provisions, unlike BVWD’s Water Service Contacts, which can reduce available supply to zero in shortage years. Additionally, the City has superior access to groundwater, directly overlying productive portions of the Enterprise- Anderson Subbasin, compared to BVWD’s limited access to the groundwater basin.
Impact UTIL-3 on page 5.17-30 of the DEIR, provides discussion regarding water supply and delivery systems and their potential impacts from the proposed project. Impact UTIL- 3 notes the City’s water supplies could accommodate the proposed project as no land use changes would occur. However, BVWD is reliant on water supply from the Central Valley Project which has been experiencing chronic shortages due to the recent drought. BVWD noted in response to the NOP for the proposed project, that the District’s water was severely constrained and that any potential development within the District must consider a source of water other than the District’s C entral Valley Project contract to be assured water. The DIER notes that the City is currently negotiating an agreement(s) with BVWD “to offset new development as conditions require” (page 5.17-30 of the DEIR). Further, with the requirement that “will serve” letters be obtained from BVWD prior to project approval, actions by the City will not impact the ability for B VWD to service its existing customer. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
A8-5 BVWD faces water shortages in years of severe drought, affecting existing customers and new development plans. The implementation of the Endangered Species Act, Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, and climate change will exacerbate these shortages.
Developments within the District's service area do not guarantee water availability, as the District's water supply is not guaranteed.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. See also response s A8-4 and A8-6.
A8-6 The commenter attended the General Plan Info Room Session on June 28, 2023, and during the Q&A session, a commenter mentioned that many areas in the General Plan are not within the City of Redding's water service area and rely on water service from other agencies, such as BVWD. The presenter responded that the City requires a Will Serve Letter from the water service agency before development. The commenter, Mr. John Kenny, noted that historically, this has not been the case. Following a meeting, the commenter contacted Development Services Director, Mr. Jeremy Pagan, to request a copy of the City's Will Serve Letter policy and procedures. However, they did not receive the information and remain unclear about when and how the City will rely on a Will Serve Letter.
As noted in UTIL -4 starting on page 5.17 -31 of the DEIR, the proposed General Plan aims to prevent development until water is available. UTIL- 4 adds that the proposed Packet Pg. 719
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 87
General Plan includes Policy CDD2B which requires that all new development provide for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services, as appropriate. Further, Policy CDD2C mandates environmental review for proposed development projects, assessing public-service impacts and requiring applicants to obtain "will-serve" letters from service providers before approving discretionary permits or building permits. UTIL-4 also lists Policy CDD2E which aims to ensure urban growth capacity and coordination with service providers to ensure all necessary public utility facilities and services are available. The City will conduct assessments of its facilities and services, and may facilitate the creation of assessment districts. If public facilities are provided by a separate water or community services district, the City will coordinate planning activities with these agencies and obtain a "will-serve" letter to accommodate development in accordance with the General Plan.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. See also response to comments A8-4.
A8-7 BVWD notes that the Draft 2023 -2045 General Plan outlines growth areas within BVWD's Main, Old Oregon Trail, and Simpson Pressure Zones. The current Master Plan did not anticipate all growth due to sewer service extension and increased density.
Infrastructure will be needed to support proposed land use changes and current development in these zones until the District can amend or replace its Master Plan.
BVWD provides a list of additional infrastructure needed for growth in these zones such as one million gallon tank in the Old Oregon Trail zone; a new pump station, piping, PRV , and appurtenances in the Old Oregon Trail zone; a new pump station in Simpson zone; and a new 3 million gallon tank in Main zone, with SCADA system upgrades planned.
No changes to land uses reflected on the General Plan Diagram are proposed with the General Plan update. No additional development potential beyond that accommodated by the 2000-2020 General Plan will be provided by adoption of the General Plan 2045.
See response to comment A8-6.
Packet Pg. 720
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 721
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 89
LETTER R1 – Viktoria Peterson (1 page)
Packet Pg. 722
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 723
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 91
R1. Response to Comments from Viktoria Peterson, dated August 6, 2023.
R1-1 The commenter suggests that the use of double negatives when referring to impacts in the executive summary makes the passage difficult to read and understand.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Impact LU-3 and Impact MIN-2, these changes do not change the determinations made but rather are made to read better. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R1-2 The commenter suggests that specific numbers should be used to establish standards in Policy CDD6B. Specifically, the commenter suggests using percentages for limiting excessive grading, inclusive degrees of slope requiring multiple levels, more exact language when referring to cutting trees and shrubbery around building footprints.
This commenter requests changes to Policy CDD6B from the General Plan Update. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R1-3 T he commenter suggests stating specific examples of well-defined community edges with measurements as the percentage of project for Policy CDD7A.
This commenter requests changes to Policy CDD7A from the General Plan Update . As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R1-4 T he commenter criticizes the weak language used in the Natural Resource Element policies and suggests adding policies with more specific demands and require percentages based on square footage.
This comment request changes to policies in the Natural Resources Element; however this is not the purpose or within the power of the DEIR. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. See response to comment
R1-5 T he commenter recommends using different wording for Impact AG-3 because it is in conflict with proposed policy CDD7A.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Impact AG-4, these changes do not change the determinations made in the discussion .
See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
Packet Pg. 724
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
R1-6 The commenter states the policies used weak language such as seek, consider, strive, encourage and suggests replacing these words with specific requirements based on the necessary mathematical formulations. The commenter also suggests that the goals include a specific time frame.
See response to comment A7-2.
Packet Pg. 725
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 93
LETTER R2 – Anonymous (1 page)
Packet Pg. 726
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 727
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 95
R2. Response to Comments from Anonymous, dated August 8, 2023.
R2-1 The commenter asks if the “significant and unavoidable” level of significance for Impact BIO-6 in the Table 1 -1 is correct since impacts B IO-1 through BIO- 5 states “less than significant” or “no impact.”
Impact BIO -6, starting on page 5. 4-37 of the DEIR, analyzes whether the proposed project, along with past, present, and foreseeable projects, will cause cumulative impacts on biological resources. The DEIR determined that although the General Plan Update includes policies that aim to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources , future development facilitated by the proposed project would lead to the loss of undeveloped lands supporting these resources. Therefore, since this impact considers all d evelopment including potential undeveloped land outside Redding, results in the cumulative change being significant and unavoidable. No change to the DEIR is required.
R2-2 The commenter asks if the “significant and unavoidable” level of significance for Impact CULT-1 is correct since impacts CULT -2 through CULT-5 are considered “Less than significant.”
Im
pact CULT-1, starting on page 5 .5-19 of the DEIR, analyzes whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to historic resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The DEIR determined that despite addition of the General Plan Update policies and compliance with applicable regulatory processes regarding protecting historical resources, some historic resources may be affected by implementation of the General Plan Update. Due to the uncertainty of future development facilitated by the proposed project , the DEIR determines that the level of significance to this impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact CULT-1 is independent of other analysis and conclusions determined on CULT -2 through CULT-5. No change to the DEIR is required.
R2-3 T he commenter states the level of significance for Impact NOI-1 is left blank in Table 1- 1, Summary of Environmental Impacts.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Table 1-1, this revision does not change the determinations nor present new information since the level of significance is determined on page 5.13-28 in Section 5.13, Noise, of the DEIR. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
Packet Pg. 728
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 729
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 97
LETTER R3 – Cameron Middleton (2 pages)
Packet Pg. 730
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 731
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 99
R3. Response to Comments from Cameron Middleton, dated August 8, 2023.
R3-1 The commenter states that the E xecutive Summary is missing a few commas in the first bullet.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to the Executive Summary. These changes do not change the determinations in the DEIR but allow more clarity in the information presented in the DEIR. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R3-2 Commissioner asks to modify mitigation measure NOI- 1 to specify the construction equipment that will be used in the project and to explicitly state if there are mitigations measures that need to be taken.
As stated in Mitigation Measure NOI -1, s tarting on page 5.13 -27, of the DEIR, equipment redesign is included as an option to address noise impacts. The parameters are intentionally written to be broad given the numerous types of construction equipment that is used, making it impractical to provide a list of all of these in the document. No changes to the DEIR are required.
R3-3 Commenter states that mitigation measure NO1-1 is too excessive regarding construction equipment. Noise pollution needs to be acknowledged, but the mitigation measure seems excessive.
See response to comment R3-2. The mitigation measure is intended to be broad in order to address the large variety and yet unknown construction projects and impacts. It is intended that the types of mitigation applied is the minimum necessary to address the impact. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R3-4 In reference to mitigation measure WILD -1, the commenter asks what department the ultimate authority has to approve the traffic control plans needed to ensure that construction equipment does not block streets during construction in a Very High Fire Severity Zone.
Public safety agencies typically work hand in hand to protect the public and it is unlikely that conflicts would arise in these limited conditions (i.e., addressing construction equipment). Both the city’s fire and police department would be responsible for jointly approving such plans as specified in mitigation measure WILD -1 on page 5.18 -33 in Section 5.18, Wildfire, of the DEIR.
R3-5 T he commenter wants to know if sweeping streets on or near construction sites is an existing standard practice.
The commenter is referencing Table 5.3-6, Recommended Standard Mitigation Measures for All Projects, on page 5.3 -18 in Section 5.3 , Air Quality. As mentioned on page 5.3 -18, these Packet Pg. 732
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
standard measures pertaining to grading permit approval have been listed on the adopted list of SIMMS provided by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District since 2000.
R3-6 In regard to Table 5.3 -7, Recommended BAMMs for Commercial/Industrial Projects, a Level A Measure, is to contribute to traffic-flow improvements that reduce emissions and are not growth-inducing. The commenter asks if this refers to there being zero growth in that area or if there will be restrictions on the roadways to restrict the growth.
The provisions are among a menu of items to be considered and applied depending on the scope and scale of a project. As stated on page 5.3 -19 in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR, these provisions have been included in the list of recommended BAMMs provided by the Shasta County Air Quality Management and is in the existing 200- 2020 Redding General Plan’s Air Quality Element.
R3-7 In regard to Table 5.3-7 Recommended BAMMs for Commercial/Industrial Projects in terms of Level B measures, the commenter believes that providing shower/locker facilities is excessive as are providing onsite services like cafeteria, vending machines, ATM, and mandating child-care facilities.
See response to comment R3-6.
R3-8 The commenter asks why the elderberry bush was not listed as a special status species.
As noted on page 5.4-19, in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the DEIR notes that the valley elderberry longhorn beetles are dependent on their host plant the elderberry bush . In addition, Impact BIO-1 also takes into consideration the elderberry bush in the survival of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle stating that “significant impacts on valley elderberry longhorn beetle may result from direct removal of shrubs” on page 5.4 -31.
Although the elderberry bush is not listed as a special status species , this plant species is still taken into consideration in the analysis since the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle lives exclusively on it. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R3-9 T he commenter believes that the date should be 1821 not 1921 when discussing fur trapping.
As noted on page 5 of Appendix 5.5-1, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures, “Russian and Spanish explorers explored the area in 1815, but Hudson Bay Company fur trapping marked the earliest European- American presence” and “ Don Luis Arguello travelled up the Sacramento River in 1921 nearly as far as what is now known as Redding”. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
Packet Pg. 733
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 101
R3-10 T he commenter supports further analysis by the City to expand the qualified candidate list of historic structures.
The commenter is referring to Policy CDD8C which encourages collaboration with public, private, and non-profit agencies to document architectural and culturally significant buildings and structures, including refining the City's Candidate List of Historic Structures. The process of identifying structures that are appropriate for the “Candidate List” is the first step in the process. Once the background/history of structures are known, efforts can be made to work with willing property owners to include the property on the “Qualified List.” No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R3-11 The commissioner calls out a potential copy and paste error in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Section that says Berkeley by name.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Section 5.6, Energy, these changes do not change the determinations in the DEIR but corrects the information to make it relevant to the proposed project and project location.
See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R3-12 In the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, the commenter wants to know if the new or old maps are being referenced in Figure 5.9-1.
As noted in Figure 5.9 -1, Fire Hazards Zones within the City of Redding , on page 5.9 -17 of the DEIR, the source uses the original CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zones 2007 maps since new 2022 maps have not been formally adopted.
R3-13 T he commenter questions the practicality of providing sound insultation for e xisting residents and sensitive receptors.
The commenter is referencing the “Sound Insulation of Existing Residences and Sensitive Receptors” on page 5.13-36 in Section 5.13, Noise, of the DEIR. This mitigation measure is one of three potential noise mitigations measures that were considered under Impact NOI-2. The DEIR discloses that this mitigation measure was rejected since there is no funding mechanisms or procedures that would guarantee that the implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would offset the increase in traffic noise to interior areas and ensure that the state’s 45 dBA CNEL standard for interior noise levels could be met.
R3-14 The commenter requests a definition of what is considered balanced along with a statement that the existing and projected ratio is lower than the target and lower than the range.
The Commenter is referencing the community’s jabs to housing balance. Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the revisions to Section 5.14, Population and Housing, although this is not a CEQA issue, these changes have been made Packet Pg. 734
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
to expand the discussion. See Section 3.2 , DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R3-15 The commenter feels as though the traffic count east of Buenaventura Boulevard listed in Table 5.16-2 is actually higher than reported and asks if the future projection needs to be adjusted.
The commenter refers to Table 5.16-2, Average Daily Traffic in Redding, on page 5.16-15 in Section 5.16, Transportation, of the DEIR. The existing and proposed traffic count were generated by GHD in July 2022.
R3-16 The commenter points out that ‘Bonnyview’ is spelled with two words, but it should be spelled as one word.
See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R3-17 In the Transportation Element, the commissioner disagrees that Impact T-4 would be less than significant and is worried about fire evacuation areas. The commissioner states that the impact should be considered significant. Furthermore, the commissioner states that Policy T2A is too constricting for an emergency scenario.
As noted in Impact TRANS -4, starting on page 5.16 -39, of the DEIR, roadway hazards are assessed at the project level, and it would be speculative to determine that these policies would indeed have a significant environmental effect. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R3-18 T he commenter asks if Figure 5-18 uses most recent state maps and ask why the state responsibilities areas have different classifications compared to the City.
As shown in Figure 5.18-1, Wildland-Urban Interface Area Near Redding , on page 5.9 -17 of the DEIR, the source uses CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) which conducts periodic assessments to align state mandates for natural resource inventories with federal funding priorities and is independent from the FIRE Hazard Severity Zones. Figure 5.18-1 shows the city’s Wildland-Urban Interface areas within the city which the DEIR explains that Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Areas are defined by CAL FIRE and apply to areas identified as Fire Hazard Severity Zones and connect to SRA Fire Safe Regulation requirements for defensible space, wildfire protection, buildings construction, and hazardous vegetation fuel management in other sections of the California Code of Regulations and Public Resources Code on page 5.18-5 of the DEIR.
Although the WUI is dependent on FHSZ , it also include s other factors thus it ha s different classifications than the FHSZ.
Packet Pg. 735
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 103
LETTER R4 – Michele Goedert (1 page)
Packet Pg. 736
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 737
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 105
R4. Response to Comments from Michele Goedert, dated August 8, 2023.
R4-1 The commenter asks why in Table 1-1, BIO-6 is significant and unavoidable while the rest of the impact statements for Biological Resources are considered less than significant or no impact.
See response to comment R2-1.
R4-2 The commissioners suggest that there is an explanation for why Impact CULT -1 is considered significant and unavoidable instead of less than significant like the rest of the impacts.
See response to comment R2-2.
R4-3 The commenter points out that Impact NOI- 1 in Table 1-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts level of significance is left blank.
See response to comment R2-3.
.
Packet Pg. 738
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 739
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 107
LETTER R5 – Aaron Hatch (1 page)
Packet Pg. 740
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 741
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 109
R5. Response to Comments from Aaron Hatch, dated August 8, 2023.
R5-1 T he commenter asks what the two alternatives , other than the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, considered in Section 7 of the DEIR.
Section 7. 2, Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis , o n page 7 -6 of the DEIR lists and summarizes the three alternatives selected for further analysis: No Project/Existing General Plan, No Annexation, and Increased Intensity.
R5-2 The commenter asks what would happen to agricultural/forest land if an annexation within the SOI were to occur under these alternatives.
Section 7.4, No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative; Section 7.5, No Annexation; and Section 7.6, Increased Intensity Alternative, in the DEIR analyze agriculture and forest resources impacts under each alternative scenario. As indicated in Table 7 -2, impacts to agricultural and biological resources would likely be less than the No Project alternative.
R5-3 T he commenter wants to know if the General Plan Update were to use less aspirational language would there be fewer significant impacts as disclosed in the EIR.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see Public Review Draft General Plan dated November, 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan , in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element.
In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR. It is speculative to analyze the impacts without knowing the changes that would be made to the proposed project’s policies. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R5-4 The commenter asks if the DEIR will address the statement made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife about how the proposed project will not result in net loss of wetland habitat values or acreage and attach all wetland delineations.
Impact BIO-3 starting on page 5.4 -35 in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, analyzes whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. The discussion concludes that with required adherence to General Plan policies, Section 4040 permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, and required project specific mitigation measures, impacts will be less than significant. This does not mean that there would not be a possible loss of values or acreages.
Packet Pg. 742
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
R5-5 In the Persons and Organizations Consulted, only the City of Redding and Bella Vista Water District are listed, the commenter wants to know if the City has an obligation to be in consult with other agencies.
The City of Redding solicited information through the NOP process for agencies which they were given opportunity to provide input on the General Plan Update and it is DEIR, the list provided in Chapter 8, Persons & Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers, shows agencies that provided information though questionnaires.
R5-6 T he commenter suggests being careful about telling Wintu history and to consult with tribe or to use other documents such as the City’s Downtown Specific Plan which includes Wintu information gathered from the tribes and suggests incorporating this information into the background section.
Commenter’s recommendations have been incorporated into the EIR via the adding a paragraph from the City’s Downtown Redding Specific Plan into Section 5.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, these changes do not change the determinations made in the discussion but give tribal consideration. See Section 3.2, DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments, in the FEIR.
R5-7 The commenter suggests that the DEIR should analyze the City’s long-term resilience to and recovery from climate related challenges (weather events, droughts, flood, atmospheric rivers, extreme heat) and include a discussion section and mitigation measures addressing these challenges.
As mentioned on page 3-11, in Chapter 3, Project Description , of the DEIR, the proposed Natural Resource Element incorporates the Air Quality provisions in part by calling for adopting a climate action and resiliency plan for the City. No changes to the DEIR are necessary. Attempting to foresee impacts of future events such as those noted and to develop mitigation measures to address them would be speculative. No specific mitigation was identified by the commenter, and therefore no additional mitigation is applicable or feasible.
R5-8 The commenter suggests adding more analysis in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 that the City could change and provide more information.
Section 6.2 provides a list of significant environmental impacts which cannot be avoided.
This is based on the analyses included in Section 5 of the document. The conclusions of the analyses are purposefully conservative in their assessment of significant impacts recognizing that new development that will occur in the City will have a potential to impact the environment, particularly cumulative impacts over time . Similarly, Section 6.3 lists those irreversible impacts that could result from future development, noting that farmland conversion and conversion of forest lands (oak woodlands) and non- forest lands is irreversible. No specific recommendations were identified by the commenter, and Packet Pg. 743
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 111
therefore no additional analysis or information is added to these sections . As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 744
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 745
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 113
LETTER R6 – Anonymous (1 page)
Packet Pg. 746
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 747
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 115
R6. Response to Comments Anonymous, dated August 13, 2023.
R6-1 The commenter states that they and other community members have been awaiting notification from the head planner of the City of Redding regarding the latest draft of the DEIR. The commenter wants to know why so little of the community knows about the proposed plan.
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Redding CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project such as the completion of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 13, 2022, titled “Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting” for the City of Redding General Plan Update 2023 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which a public scoping meeting was conducted on May 24, 2022, and the public comment period for the NOP closed on June 17, 2022. The NOP was sent to interested persons and organizations, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, posted at the City’s website, and published in the Redding Record Searchlight , and posted at the Shasta County Clerk’s office. Preparation of a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period beginning July 14, 2023, and ending August 28, 2023. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIR was sent to interested persons and organizations, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, posted at the City’s website, and published in the Redding Record Searchlight on February 4, 2023. The NOA was posted at the Shasta County Clerk’s office on February 3, 2023. The Redding Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to take comments on the draft EIR on August 18, 2023.
Packet Pg. 748
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 749
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 117
LETTER R7 – Anonymous (1 page)
Packet Pg. 750
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 751
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 119
R7. Response to Comments from Anonymous, dated August 14, 2023.
R7-1 The commenter states there is insufficient zoning for duplex and multifamily units.
The proposed Community Design and Development Element includes policies that could help facilitate additional zoning for these residential uses such as Policy CDD1A, CDD1C, CDD11K, CDD12G. Additionally, the Housing Element that has been certified by the state Department of Housing and Community Development and thus is not a part of this update, identifies more than sufficient vacant lands to accommodate projected growth for all residential development types. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R7-2 The commenter says there is no planned roadway access for undeveloped residential subdivision properties.
See r
esponse to comment A2 -10. The City’s development standards require that public street access be provided to all new residential developments at the time they are developed. Since the timing and layout of future developments are not known, local streets, such as subdivisions streets , are not pre- planned/identified in the manner that future main streets such as collector and arterial streets are identified. The Transportation Element contains aa Circulation Plan (Figure 9) that shows existing and planned collector and arterial streets. The proposed Public Safety Element policies require local planning and development to improve transportation efficiency, access, and emergency response plans such as Policy PS4K which enforces subdivision regulations limiting cul -de-sac lengths to 600 feet and providing emergency-vehicle turnaround areas; Policy PS4L requires residential and commercial developments with 50 or more dwelling units and 150 or more people to have at least two connected public access points; and Policy PS4N ensures new subdivisions have adequate fire protection measures, including multi -access for firefighting apparatus, noncombustible building construction, defensible space, street widths, and grade for emergency vehicles and evacuees. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R7-3 T
he commenter says there is no public transportation element that unites both sides of river or north south higher density.
The Transportation Element in Redding focuses on the city's street and transportation network, ensuring efficient movement of people and goods. It includes a Circulation Plan for roadway modifications, including bicycle, pedestrian, and bus facilities, to accommodate all community members. It includes proposed new major streets and bridges across the Sacramento River although timing of construction is uncertain. As there are no site- specific designs/projects for any development under the proposed project, it would be speculative to analyze impacts or details of projects at this time. At Packet Pg. 752
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
the time future developments are proposed, subsequent analysis would evaluate these sites for consistency with the City’s plans. Further, public transportation is provided by the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) and other providers and route planning is under their purview. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R7-4 The commenter asks if the expansion of water and sewer facilities is needed to meet the proposed expansion of public facilities such as parks, shopping centers, school sites, etc.
The commenter asks if water and sewer facilities needing major expansion.
Impact UTIL-1 staring on page 5.17-12 in Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR analyzes the whether s ewer and wastewater treatment systems would meet the proposed project requirements without requiring new facilities or expansion, ensuring adequate capacity. Impact UTIL-3, starting on page 5.17 -30 in Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the DEIR analyzes whether the water supply would be adequate to meet project requirements. Both impact discussions consider all new development described in Table 3-2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast, in Chapter 3, Project Description , of the DEIR. Impact UTIL-1 determined the proposed project will be adequately served by wastewater treatment facilities, ensuring sufficient capacity to meet demand, resulting in minimal impacts. Impact UTIL-3 determined implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities . In both cases, new and/or upgraded water distribution and wastewater collection lines will need to be provided to accommodate new development in accordance with the analyses provided in the City’s master utility plan documents and those of other service providers such as the Bella Vista Water District and the Clear Creek Community Services District.
R7-5 T he commenter asks if there will be local neighborhood stations for community policing with the proposed project.
As there are no site-specific designs/projects the General Plan Update, it would be speculative to analyze impacts at this time. As development proposals are made , appropriate analyses will be conducted to determine the need for police substations and similar public safety facilities. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R7-6 The commenter asks if there will be a new low security county jail with the proposed project. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. The siting and funding of county jail facilities is not within the scope of the City of Redding’s jurisdiction or responsibilities.
Packet Pg. 753
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 121
R7-7 The commenter asks if there will be neighborhood clinics or temporary shelters with the proposed project to reduce concentration around hospitals.
As there are no site-specific designs/projects the General Plan Update, it would be speculative to analyze impacts at this time, although numerous policies are included in the General Plan Update that address these needs . As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 754
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 755
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 123
LETTER R8 – John Livingston (2 pages)
Packet Pg. 756
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 757
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 125
R8. Response to Comments from John Livingston, dated August 14, 2023.
R8-1 The commenter encourages that the project preparers consider the River Front Specific Plan when planning in order to preserve the fragile, existing riparian habitat and the wildlife in the area.
The G eneral Plan Update states that the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan is currently being updated. The Council decided to initiate an update, focusing on the design, feasibility, master planning, and development of the 45 -acre riverfront area as well as protection of the existing riparian areas. For more information on the process and to sign up for notifications, please visit cityofredding.org/riverfrontplan. Note that until such time as a new Specific Plan is adopted, the guiding policy document for this area of the riverfront is the current Redding Riverfront Specific Plan and its associated environmental impact report. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R8-2 T he co mmenter suggests that ‘Bird Sanctuary Area’ status needs to be formally defined by the City or else the City could face legal repercussions for not defining acceptable uses.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R8-3 The commenter suggests that if development of retail, housing, and recreational facilities is desired in Redding, then the development should occur elsewhere to not disturb native wildlife and habitats.
Secti
on 5.4, Biological Resources, in the DEIR, analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on the City’s biological resources such as special status species, riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, migratory species and corridors, species protected by local ordinances, adopted habitat conservation plan, and cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources. All impacts were determined to have a less than except for Impact BIO-6 which was determined as significant and unavoidable. The DEIR found that the proposed project would result in the loss of undeveloped lands supporting biological resources and that this cumulative change is significant and unavoidable, considering all future development facilities under the proposed project, including potential undeveloped land outside Redding. Note that until such time as a new Specific Plan is adopted, the guiding policy document for this area of the riverfront is the current Redding Riverfront Specific Plan and its associated environmental impact report. A new environmental impact report will be prepared for the Specific Plan update. That document will address potential impacts and mitigation measures of the Specific Plan. The General Plan Update does not propose any land use changes to the Specific Plan area.
Packet Pg. 758
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
R8-4 The commenter states the City should maintain vegetated lands for citizens to recreate, as seen in Chico's Bidwell Park and its significant assets. The commenter is concerned about development that may occur north of Highway 44 in the City. The commenter thinks that development of this area would decrease the natural character of the area for wildlife and people.
The current Redding Riverfront Specific Plan and its environmental impact report serve as the guiding policy document for this area of the riverfront until a new Specific Plan is adopted. A new environmental impact report will be prepared for the Specific Plan update, addressing potential impacts and mitigation measures. The General Plan Update does not propose any land use changes to the Specific Plan. R8-5 The commenter believes that private landowners south of Highway 44 should keep the river wild and natural, yet accessible to the public. The commenter suggests the City use grant funding and resources to achieve this. The commenter thanks for consideration for their comments and states that our environment is of top priority for wildlife and humans.
The updated Redding Riverfront Specific Plan will establish the basic and use design parameters for the area. All future development would need to be consistent with that Plan and its associated EIR . Should development be proposed prior to adoption of the updated Specific Plan it must be found to be consistent with the current Specific Plan and its EIR. See response to comment R8 -3 in regard to loss of undeveloped lands that supports the City’s biological resources . The DEIR is a programmatic EIR, therefor e, project-level information is not known at this time, and it would be speculative to assume this information. However, future project applicants would need to comply with the policies set forth in the General Plan Update as well as any local, state, and federal regulations in regard to biological resources. C omments will be forwarded to decision - makers for consideration. No change to the DEIR is required.
Packet Pg. 759
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 127
LETTER R9 – Anonymous (1 page)
Packet Pg. 760
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 761
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 129
R9. Response to Comments from Anonymous, dated August 26, 2023.
R9-1 The commenter quotes the conclusion made in regard to selecting the No Annexation Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. The commenter states that the No Annexation Alternative should be considered as the main DEIR proposal.
As mentioned in Section 7.7 , Environmentally Superior Alternative , in the DEIR, t he No Annexation Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it is environmentally superior alternative with regard to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and wildfire. However, t he No Annexation Alternative would generally meet the project objectives, but to a lesser exten t. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration
Packet Pg. 762
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 763
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 131
LETTER R10 – Rebecca Evans (1 page)
Packet Pg. 764
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 765
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 133
R10. Response to Comments from Rebecca Evans dated August 26, 2023.
R10-1 The commenter asks to mitigate noise pollution by considering structural changes and sound dampening engineering in residential zones near busy thoroughfares. Specifically, signal lights like Victor and Hartnell, where traffic is loud and may cause hearing loss for residents.
The DEIR lists three potential noise mitigations measures that were considered under Impact NOI-2. The DEIR discloses that these mitigation measure were rejected since there is no funding mechanisms or procedures that would guarantee that the implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would offset the increase in traffic noise to interior areas and ensure that the state’s 45 dBA CNEL standard for existing residences. No changes to the DEIR are required.
R10-2 The commenter states that residents could install multiple pane glass in their homes, but this does not reduce noise pollution, impacting the environment and causing constant siren noise from Hartnell emergency teams.
See response to comment R10-1.
Packet Pg. 766
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 767
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 135
LETTER R11 – Ron Dykstra (1 page)
Packet Pg. 768
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 769
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 137
R11. Response to Comments from Ron Dykstra, dated August 27, 2023.
R11-1 The commenter states that there should be a statement or explanation after: “... the sources and effects of greenhouse gas emissions concentrations are global; the economic, environmental, and social effects of climate change are extensive” that explains why greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change. The commenter wants it to be noted that primary effects of climate change in the City of Redding are worsening heat waves, wildfires, and droughts.
The DEIR includes Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gases, which evaluates the potential for the City’s General Plan Update to impact greenhouse gas emissions in a local and regional context. As this comment requests changes to the proposed project (General Plan Update) rather than inadequacies to the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R11-2 The commenter agrees with NR14A and believes that to address climate change the City must adopt a Climate Action and Resiliency Plan.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 770
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 771
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 139
LETTER R12 – Cathy Anderson (2 pages)
Packet Pg. 772
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 773
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 141
R12. Response to Comments from Cathy Anderson, dated August 27, 2023.
R12-1 The commenter expresses concerns over future commercial development in the riverfront that can possibly lower community access to the Sacramento River. The commenter expresses that the Sacramento River provides a lot of benefits such as recreational activities, scenic views, and brings in tax money.
Se
e response R8-1 in regard to the Riverfront Specific Plan. As mentioned in Impact BIO- 4, starting on page 5.4 -36 in Section 5.4, Biological Resources , in the DEIR, the proposed Natural Resources Element contains policies that address potential impacts to these corridors, such as Policy NR7A requires development in areas defined as "Greenway" by the General Plan Update to consider corridor impacts and, where necessar y, provide alternate usable links between habitat types or areas and/or provide alternate development plans that avoid the open -space network and sensitive habitats and Policy NR7B discourages development impacts to these linkages and corridors and encourages full mitigation associated with unavoidable adverse impacts. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R12-2 T he commenter wants to keep the Park Marina as is in terms of housing and suggests keeping housing away from the Riverfront.
As mentioned on page 3-5 on Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, the Riverfront Focus Area (formerly the Park Marina Focus Area) would not contain mandatory land use changes thus is this area allowed housing then it would continue to allow housing. As this comment requests changes to the proposed project (General Plan Update) or is intended to influence the update of the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan rather than inadequacies to the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R12-3 The commenter states that the weather does not incentivize people to use the bike trails except for homeless people and criminals. The commenter assumes that the reason behind converting dual lanes from single lanes are due to make room for shopping cart traffic.
The inconvenience of weather is not a CEQA issue. However, the General Plan includes policies that increase accessibility to bike trails such as Policy CDD7B , CDD14C, CDD20G. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R12-4 The commenter states the City of Redding is getting rid of the Redding Rodeo. The commenter states that there has not been any disclosure about these plans and suggests that an alternative plan be presented to citizens.
Packet Pg. 774
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This comment refers to the potential outcome of the update of the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan and future developers and specific individual projects in that area. The General Plan Update does not make any determination regarding the future of the Redding Rodeo Grounds. The commenter should refer to the existing Redding Riverfront Specific Plan as it is the current guiding document for the area until such time as a new Specific Plan is adopted. See response to comment R8 -1 for additional information on the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan. The DEIR is a programmatic EIR, therefore, project-level information is not known at this time, and it would be speculative to assume this information. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary
R12-5 The commenter is unsure how the City of Redding will move forward with future plans without addressing homelessness and crime in the City. The commenter states that these issues cause businesses and money to leave the city and go to neighboring counties and cities.
While this comment does not address any environmental concerns or the adequacy of the DEIR, it should be noted that the Housing Element (which is not part of the General Plan Update) includes policies aimed at providing housing to the homeless population.
No changes to the DEIR are required.
R12-6 The commenter critiques a previous project concerning a roundabout near a Costco and expresses their astonishment at how the EIR for that project was approved and expresses similar concerns regarding traffic with the proposed plan with new retail uses by the river.
This comment does not address the proposed project. And will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 775
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 143
LETTER R13 – Sharon (2 pages)
Packet Pg. 776
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 777
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 145
R13. Response to Comments from Sharon, dated August 27, 2023.
R13-1 The commenter expresses how it was daunting to read the entire EIR, but commends the city staff for putting it all together and mentions how being sustainable city is important.
The commenter also appreciates that the General Plan is progressive and forward thinking as it is conscious of environmental justice, cultural heritage, and Indigenous peoples.
The City of Redding appreciates comments and recommendations from the commenter.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
R13-2 The commenter expresses appreciation for the public safety focus through the expansion of Public Services such as the Crisis R esponse Intervention Team. Also noted is the support for community policing approaches and encouraging a more robust involvement from residents to be on review boards for greater accountability and collaboration with the Redding Police Department.
See response to comment R13-1.
R13-3 The commenter expresses concerns of the possible annexation especially in the Churn Creek Bottom area. The commenter is supportive of not having single family residences occupying 1-5 acres, but would like to pursue options outside of annexation.
As shown in Chapter 7, Alternatives, the DEIR also considered an Increased Intensity Alternative which aims to promote development in line with the City's existing land use pattern; however, increased density and intensity, reducing the need for annexation. Note that the Churn Creek Bottom area, while included in the City’s Planning Area due to the influences of the Redding Regional Airport, Stillwater Business Park, and other development in proximity to the area, is not within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) adopted by the Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and cannot be annexed unless the SOI is amended by that body.
R13-4 The commenter is supportive of transportation policies, especially micro options and would like to see how these can better serve low income, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Various policies of the Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element address the populations noted. However, the comment is not pertinent under CEQA so no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R13-5 The commenter highlights that emergency preparedness is important, and highlights the benefits of being proactive to climate- related events by being climate resilient and strengthening community ties to better handle the next natural disaster. The commenter Packet Pg. 778
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
mentions how natural disasters affected them personally through the destruction of their home, and is glad to see the mitigation of wildfires in the plan.
Climate change has become a significant concern for cities, requiring more attention to vehicular emissions, travel patterns, land development, sprawl conditions, and building design. The General Plan Update addresses all of these issues in some fashion. However, it specifically includes policies related to climate action and resiliency such as Policy EJ3E and Policy EJ5F. No changes to the DEIR are necessary.
R13-6 T he commenter states increasing housing , particularly for low -income and senior residents, is important.
While this comment does not address any environmental concerns or the adequacy of the DEIR, it should be noted that the Housing Element includes policies aimed at providing housing to the low income a senior population. The DEIR’s Chapter 3, Project Description, states that the Housing Element is not being updated as it is certified until 2028 from the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
R13-7 The commenter highlights their experience as a grant writer and understands why the document uses words such as “consider” and “address” to allow for flexibility for unanticipated opportunities, but also critiques the usage of those words as the commenter believes the document is very important and should have stronger language that demonstrates commitment to action.
See response to comment R1-6.
R13-8 The commenter states that there are people in the county who are trying to undermine government and dismantle government offices. In having more concrete details in the Plan could help ensure public trust and for greater accountability. The commenter then thanks the city staff for focusing on climate and the city.
The City of Redding appreciate comments and recommendations from the commenter.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary . This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 779
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 147
LETTER R14 – Dawn Smith (1 page)
Packet Pg. 780
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 781
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 149
R14. Response to Comments from Dawn Smith, dated August 31, 2023.
R14-1 The commenter asks to extend the Draft Environmental Impact Report to 60 days.
No unusual circumstances arising from this project justify extending the review period, the State mandated 45 -day review period required under Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. The notice for the proposed project follows these guidelines and is adequate.
The commenter can refer to response to comment R6-1 above in regard to how the City has inform the public and agencies about the progress of the CEQA process and the appropriate opportunities for input. The commenter has not substantiated that an unusual situation exists that would warrant a longer public review period than the 45 -day public review period outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. However, the City of Redding did accept late comment letters and all comment letters received to date have been responded to in this FEIR.
R14-2 The commenter states that they want to conserve and protect birds, wildlife and their environment. The commenter states these issues are important to them, the state of California, and the proposed project.
Section 5.4, Biological Resources, in the DEIR, analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources. Specifically , t he Impact BIO -1 evaluates the potential adverse impact of a proposed project on species listed as sensitive or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Impact BIO-1 also states that The General Plan Update includes policies in the Natural Reso urces Element to preserve and enhance habitats for special-status species. Policy NR4A focuses on avoiding development-related disturbances by encouraging innovative site design and planning, ensuring statutory protection, and requiring appropriate mitigation if disturbed. In addition, BIO-1 states that future development under the General Plan would need to comply with state regulations such as the compliance with the policies and regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Packet Pg. 782
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 783
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 151
LETTER R15 – Terri Lhuillier (1 page)
Packet Pg. 784
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 785
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 153
R15. Response to Comments from Terri Lhuillier, dated November 14, 2023.
R15-1 Terri Lhuillier, founder and director of the Friends of the Redding Eagles is a non-profit group that has been monitoring and documenting the resident pair of Bald Eagles in the Turtle Bay Area since 2005. The female bald eagle, Liberty, is 25 years old and has successfully raised 26 eaglets, including three sets of triplets with three different mates.
The group monitors 22 other Bald Eagle Nests in Shasta and Tehama County, and has 18,000 followers on their Facebook page. They also own and operate the Redding Eagle cam, which allows them to share their Redding Eagles with their global fans.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment describes the Friends of the Redding Eagles organization. Please review Appendix 5.4-1, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum for the City of Redding General Plan, in the DEIR for information on special status birds within the City of Redding.
R15-2 The proposed development in Turtle Bay, home to the Bald Eagle’s Nest and other Raptor Nests like Osprey, Great Horned Owl, Red-tailed Hawk, and Red Shouldered Hawk, is of great concern to the family. The commenter is familiar with the area and would be happy to assist with the nest locations or provide information on Bald Eagle nesting.
The General Plan outlines specific goals and policies for protecting biological resources , including "special status species” . There are no specific developments proposed in the Turtle Bay area, the DEIR should avoid speculations until specific plans or development projects are proposed. Potential future developments subject to discretionary approval must undergo environmental and development review processes before project approval.
See response to comment R14 -2 regarding biological species impact from the proposed project and R8-1 regarding the update of the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan.
R15-3 The commenter approves the language in Policy NR6C. However, the commenter is concerned about the language in Policy NR6E specifically "We will strive to conserve all special-status species". The commenter is not comfortable with the use of "strive" and requests a change to "We will conserve all special -status species". They hope the policy will prioritize conservation and take all necessary actions to achieve this goal.
Section 3.4, Policy Changes In The General Plan, in this FEIR, shows the changes to policies in the proposed Natural Resources Element, which includes policies related to biological resources. These policy changes eliminate the type of language the comment is referring to above Policy NR4A has been modified to specify avoidance of development related disturbances to special status species. However, this comment does not describe any inadequacies in the CEQA analysis or conclusion in the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
Packet Pg. 786
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
R15-4 The commenter would also like to speak directly with the Planners to show them the particular areas that are critical to the survival and productivity of the resident Bald Eagle Pair.
The City of Redding appreciate comments and recommendations from the commenter.
As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 787
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 155
LETTER R16 – David Ledger, Shasta Environmental Alliance (2 pages)
Packet Pg. 788
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
Packet Pg. 789
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
February 2024 Page 157
R16. Response to Comments from David Ledger, Shasta Environmental Alliance, dated December 19, 2023.
R16-1 The commenter states that the changes made are commendable, although more directive language like "shall or must" would have been beneficial. The commenter states that the changes made are a significant improvement, despite the desire for more directive language.
In response to public comments, over 100 policies of the Draft General Plan Update (see Public Review Draft General Plan dated November 2023) were modified in a manner that provides additional or stronger direction. Section 3.4, Policy Changes In the General Plan, in this FEIR shows the changes to policies in seven of the proposed Elements including Economic Development Element, Community Design and Development Element, Public Facilities Element, Natural Resources Element, Public Safety Element, Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element, and the Transportation Element.
In addition, Appendix A, Revised DEIR, in this FEIR will show the track changes of the policy changes in the DEIR.
R16-2 The commenter states that the word “consider” was left in the language of the general plan for a Climate Action Plan. The commenter states that they were on the Environmental Justice focus group and several members mentioned the need for stronger language at several of the meetings, but it was never addressed. The commenter states that there is no doubt about the dangers of global warming among scientists worldwide, yet there is still have weak language concerning it in the general plan. The commenter states that no one on the focus group advocated to “consider” a climate action plan.
See response to comment A6 -6 in regard to the climate action plan. The comments will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration.
R16-3 The commenter states that in 2008, Adam Fiesler of Shasta County Resource Services created a Climate Action Plan for the entire county, but it failed due to political beliefs and did not advance to the Board of Supervisors. The commenter states that if the county could develop a plan, the City of Redding could develop a plan to combat climate change.
The commenter notes that Redding can adopt a Climate Action Plan and meet its goals, similar to other California cities like Chico. The commenter states that vague language is not effective in this global emergency.
See response to comment A6-6 in regard to the climate action plan.
R16-4 The commenter strongly urges to drop the word “consider the development and adoption of ” and replace it with “develop and adopt” in Policy EJ3E.
See response to comment A6-6 in regard to the climate action plan.
Packet Pg. 790
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
2. Response to Comments
R16-5 The commenter notes that Policy NR6E refers to a "Street Tree List" but the new tree list was called a Comprehensive Tree List, not a Street Tree List. The commenter notes that the semantics are important as all trees on the list were specifically selected based on their adaptability to city streets, parking lots, and sidewalks in Redding. Trees recommended for parks or residential yards would have been selected using different cr iteria. The commenter states that the name should be changed back to Street Tree List.
Policy NR6E notes the Street Tree List as the commenter recommends. As this comment does not describe any inadequacies of the DEIR, no changes to the DEIR are necessary.
This comment will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration.
Packet Pg. 791
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
February 2024 Page 159
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon ( 1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DEIR. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.
3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR.
Existing Conditions heading, in response to Comment A2-23, from CHP Redding Area, dated August 21, 2023.
The Redding Police Department is located at 777 Cypress Avenue. The department also has an office located at 1516 Market Street, in downtown Redding. Two other law enforcement agency headquarters are also located within the City, including the Shasta County Sheriff ’s Office’s at 300 Park Marina Circle and the California Highway Patrol at 2503 Cascade Boulevard. Other State law enforcement located within the City of Redding, including the following:
CHP Northern Division – 2485 Sonoma Street, Redding, CA 96001 CHP Northern Air Operations – 2600 Gold Street, Redding, CA 96001 CalFire LEO – 875 Cypress Ave, Redding, CA 96001
Alcoholic Beverage Control – 1900 Churn Creek Road, Redding, CA 96002 Department of Fish and Wildlife – 601 Locust Street, Redding, CA 96001 CDCR Parole – 391 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96001
heading, in response to Comment A3-4, from CDFW, dated August 28, 2023.
Packet Pg. 792
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
3.2.1 Invertebrates
A total of six special-status invertebrate species have documented occurrences or have potential to occur within the SOI as presented below. Of the invertebrate species listed, the fairy shrimp, linderiella, and tadpole shrimp species are restricted to vernal pools and wetlands. Valley elderberry longhorn beetles are restricted to their host plant, species of the genus Sambucus. Monarch butterflies are not restricted to any particular habitat, but the caterpillars feed on milkweed (Asclepiassp.) while adults typically roost in Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress, and Eucalyptus species. Attachment B found in Appendix 5.4-1 provides additional details on each species:
Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus ssp. dimorphus)
California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus
On September 30, 2022, the candidacy of four California bumble bee species was reinstated under CESA. As such, Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii), whose range bisects the City of Redding receives the same legal protection afforded to endangered or threatened species (Fish and Game Code, §§ 2074.2 and 2085). It is illegal to import, export, take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt engage in any of these activities), possess, purchase, or sell CESA-listed species, or any part or product thereof (Fish and Game Code, §§ 86, 2080 and 2085).
response to Comment A3-8, from CDFW, dated August 25, 2023.
The City of Redding contains essential movement corridors for native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, and development allowed by General Plan Update could potentially have adverse impacts on migratory species and corridors. The Sacramento River and associated riparian corridors represent significant migratory fish and wildlife corridors through the SOI. The Sacramento River, Churn Creek, and Stillwater Creek are all identified as riparian corridors providing north-south habitat connectivity through the city, and the undeveloped open space areas surrounding the city provide terrestrial connectivity.
In addition, according to the California
Biogeographic Information System (BIOS), an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA) occurs just west of Redding.
Development along these areas could occur and could impede movement of native or migratory species.
response to Comment A4-1, from CGS, dated August 28, 2023.
Most of the city is relatively flat to gently sloping. The western, northern, and northeastern portions of the city may be susceptible to landslides, a Landslide susceptibility is the relative likelihood that landslides will occur.
Landslides can be broken into two categories; shallow -seated and deep- seated landslides. Shallow -seated landslides occur in the regolith – the unconsolidated earth material and soil overlying bedrock. Deep -seated landslides occur below the regolith and includes failure into bedrock. Shallow landslides typically occur on Packet Pg. 793
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 161
slopes greater than 65 percent, and in steep, convergent areas. Deep- seated landslides are primarily a function of rock strength and slope, but it is also affected by precipitation and earthquake potential (CGS 2013).
As seen in Figure 5.7 -3, Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility in Redding , the western, northern, and northeastern portions of the City are susceptible may be deep- seated landslides. Figure 5.7-3 shows the relative likelihood of deep-seated landslides based on regional estimates of rock strength and steepness of slopes developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS). CGS Map Sheet 58: Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility is based on information of the location of past landslides, the location and relative strength of rock units, and steepness of slope to estimate susceptibility to deep-seated landslides. The susceptibility classes shown in Figure 5.7-3 are based on the classes of landslide susceptibility (0 to 10, low to high) shown on CGS Map Sheet 58 and aggregate the source map classes into three categories of low, medium, and high susceptibility. These classes express the generalization that on very low slopes, landslide susceptibility is low even in weak materials, and that landslide susceptibility increases with slope and in weak rocks. Note that the information shown in Figure 5.7-3 does not reflect shallow-seated landslide susceptibility, nor should it be used for site-specific use.
Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility in response to Comment A4-1, from CGS, dated August 28, 2023.
Source: Generated using ArcGISPro, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2022; California Geologic Survey, 2018 Wills, C.J., Perez, F.G., and Gutierrez, C.I.; 2011, Susceptibility to Deep -Seated Landslides in California. California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 52, scale approximately 1:1,775,000.
to Comment A4-1, from CGS, dated August 28, 2023.
California Geological Survey. 2013. Factors Affecting Landslides in Forested Terrain Note 50. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-50.pdf
Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in response to Comment R1-1, from Viktoria Peterson, date d August 06, 2023.
Packet Pg. 794
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measure, and Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.11 Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not divide an established community. Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant LU-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant LU-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less-than- significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning. Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.12 Mineral Resources
MIN-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant MIN-2: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less-than- significant cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources. Less than Significant None R equired Less than Significant Packet Pg. 795
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 163
Comment R1-5, from Viktoria Peterson, dated August 06, 2023.
AG-4 The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. [Threshold AG-5].
Although farmland and agricultural uses are limited within the City Limits and identified growth areas of this General Plan, if development were to occur under the existing land use classifications, such lands would be converted to non-agricultural uses.
The General Plan Update includes goals, policies, actions, and regulations that reduce conflicts between agr
icultural operations and urban uses that could potentially result in farmland conversion such as Policy CDD7A, which requires strives to maintain well -defined community edges using open- space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream courses, clustered development, and other appropriate types of landscape and design features. Policy NR12A addresses buffers for new development to minimize impacts of adjacent to active agricultural operations to reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in response to Comment R2-3, from Anonymous, dated August 08, 2023.
Packet Pg. 796
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measure, and Level of Significance After Mitigation
5.13 Noise
NOI-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.
Potentially Significant NOI: Update the noise ordinance to include construction noise attenuation and plan requirements such as:
• Limiting construction times and days.
• Use of best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Limitations on the use of impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
Significant and Unavoidable
Packet Pg. 797
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 165
Procedures, in response to Comment R3-16, from Cameron Middleton, dated August 08, 2023.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
The following objectives for the 2023-2045 General Plan Update will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
Advance the City’s vision for a resilient, equitable, and healthy community with high-quality development urban centers and corridors.
Redevelop existing commercial centers and arterial street corridors to provide a larger range of neighborhood-serving services, and/or additional residential uses. Strive to ensure that all new development connects to existing paths, trails, and roadways, where reasonable.
in Redding, in response to Comment R-16, from Cameron Middleton dated August 08, 2023.
Table 5.16-2 Average Daily Traffic in Redding
Street / Route Location
Avg Daily Traffic
Baseline 2045 Percent Change
Interstate 5 (I-5) N of Twin View Blvd 39,500 51,100 29.37% Interstate 5 (I-5) N of SR-299 / S of Twin View Blvd 46,500 58,100 24.95% Interstate 5 (I-5) N of SR-44 / S of SR-299 60,000 75,000 25.00% Interstate 5 (I-5) S of SR-44 / N of Cypress Ave 69,000 88,600 28.41% Interstate 5 (I-5) S of Cypress Ave / N of Churn Cr Rd 61,000 80,000 31.15% Interstate 5 (I-5) S of Churn Creek Rd 58,000 78,200 34.83% SR-44 E of Butte St / W of I-5 56,000 66,200 18.21%
SR-44 E of I-5 / W of Hilltop Dr 48,000 55,700 16.04%
SR-44 E of Hilltop Dr / W of Victor Ave 37,000 45,900 24.05% SR-44 E of Victor Ave 35,000 39,100 11.71%
SR-44 Shasta View Dr 23,500 29,500 25.53%
SR-44 Airport Rd 16,600 20,600 24.10%
SR-273 N of Lake Blvd 12,700 14,000 10.24%
SR-273 N of Benton Dr/S of Lake Blvd 20,800 23,500 12.98% SR-273 S of Market/Pine 16,800 19,100 13.69%
SR-273 S of Buenaventura Ave 19,200 22,500 17.19%
SR-273 S of S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd 21,800 25,000 14.68% SR-299 W of I-5 / E of SR-273 20,300 25,400 25.12%
SR-299 E of I-5 / W of Hawley Rd 21,000 25,500 21.43%
SR-299 E of Hawley Rd/W of Old Oregon Tr. 11,600 14,100 21.55% SR-299 E of Old Oregon Tr. 9,700 11,000 13.40%
Airport Rd N of Rancho Rd 12,100 16,400 35.54%
Airport Rd S of Rancho Rd 9,900 13,800 39.39%
Packet Pg. 798
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Street / Route Location
Avg Daily Traffic
Baseline 2045 Percent Change
S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd west of I-5 ramps 21,600 26,000 20.37% S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd east of I-5 ramps 23,700 29,300 23.63% S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd west of Churn Creek Rd 21,100 25,700 21.80% Buenaventura Blvd N of Placer St 9,300 10,500 12.90%
Buenaventura Blvd S of Placer St 9,400 11,500 22.34%
California St btw Shasta & Tehama St 6,100 6,700 9.84%
Churn Creek Rd S of SR-299 ramps 13,100 15,800 20.61%
Churn Creek Rd N of S Bonnyview Bonny view 13,000 14,900 14.62% Churn Creek Rd E of S Bonnyview Bonny view 13,400 17,800 32.84% Cypress Ave W of Hartnell Ave 27,900 35,900 28.67%
Cypress Ave E of Hartnell Ave 19,000 22,200 16.84%
Cypress Ave E of I-5 / W of Hilltop Dr 31,200 36,800 17.95% Cypress Ave E of Hilltop Dr / W of Larkspur Ln 21,000 25,100 19.52% Hartnell Ave W of Bechelli Ln 12,000 12,700 5.83%
Hartnell Ave E of Bechelli Ln 13,600 13,800 1.47%
Hartnell Ave E of Churn Creek Rd 18,400 19,500 5.98%
Hartnell Ave W of Shasta View Dr 10,000 11,400 14.00%
S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd east of I-5 ramps 23,700 29,300 23.63% S. Bonnyview Bonny view Rd west of Churn Creek Rd 21,100 25,700 21.80% Buenaventura Blvd N of Placer St 9,300 10,500 12.90%
Buenaventura Blvd S of Placer St 9,400 11,500 22.34%
California St btw Shasta & Tehama St 6,100 6,700 9.84%
Churn Creek Rd S of SR-299 ramps 13,100 15,800 20.61%
Churn Creek Rd N of S Bonnyview Bonny view 13,000 14,900 14.62% Churn Creek Rd E of S Bonnyview Bonny view 13,400 17,800 32.84% Cypress Ave W of Hartnell Ave 27,900 35,900 28.67%
Cypress Ave E of Hartnell Ave 19,000 22,200 16.84%
Cypress Ave E of I-5 / W of Hilltop Dr 31,200 36,800 17.95% Cypress Ave E of Hilltop Dr / W of Larkspur Ln 21,000 25,100 19.52% Hartnell Ave W of Bechelli Ln 12,000 12,700 5.83%
Hartnell Ave E of Bechelli Ln 13,600 13,800 1.47%
Hartnell Ave E of Churn Creek Rd 18,400 19,500 5.98%
Hartnell Ave W of Shasta View Dr 10,000 11,400 14.00%
Hartnell Ave E of Shasta View Dr 5,900 7,100 20.34%
Hawley Rd. N of SR-299 ramps 6,400 7,800 21.88%
Hilltop Ave N of Cypress Ave 12,100 13,300 9.92%
Old Oregon Trail S of SR-299 ramps 7,400 10,100 36.49%
Placer St E of Buenaventura Blvd 12,500 15,300 22.40%
Placer St W of Buenaventura Blvd 13,900 14,100 1.44%
Rancho Rd W of Airport Rd 6,200 9,100 46.77%
Victor Ave N of Rancho Rd 3,600 5,100 41.67%
Packet Pg. 799
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 167
Company subheading, in response to Comment R3-11, from Cameron Middleton dated August 08, 2023.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that generates, purchases, and transmits energy under contract with th
e CPUC. Its service territory is 70,000 square miles in area, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield, and east to west from the Sierra Nevada range to the Pacific Ocean. The electricity distribution system of PG&E consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines. PG&E owns and maintains above- and below-ground networks of electric and gas transmission and distribution facilities throughout Berkeley Redding.
Ratio heading, in response to Comment R3-14, from Cameron Middleton dated August 08, 2023.
Jobs-Housing Ratio
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and number of housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area, in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units in addition to the type of jobs versus the price of housing, has implications for mobility and air quality. The job-housing ratio is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project area. There is no ideal jobs -housing ratio adopted in state, regional, or city policies. The American Planning Association (APA) is an authoritative resource for community planning best practices, including recommendations for assessing jobs -housing rations.
Although APA recognizes that an ideal jobs -housing ratio will vary across jurisdictions, it recommend target for an appropriate jobs-housing ratio is 1.5 jobs for each housing unit, with a recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7 (Weitz 2003).
The 2020 jobs-ho
using ratio is 1.25, which is considered balanced and T the growth estimated in Table 3 -2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast would result in a jobs-housing ratio of 1.27, thereby keeping the city balanced. Although both the existing and proposed jobs -housing ratio are below the target jobs -housing ratio of 1.5 and the recommended range (1.3 and 1.7), the jobs -housing ratio is moving towards the recommended range.
Ethnographic heading, in response to Comment R5-6, from Aaron Hatch dated August 08, 2023.
The family unit was the basic organization unit and the village served as the focus of social, political, and economic organization. The position of chief was hereditary, passing from father to eldest son; however, it was necessary that the son be deemed worthy by the villagers. The Wintu were generally known to be a peaceful people, but they did engage in warfare. Wintu wars were typically the result of feuds between individuals or neighboring groups, and these conflicts were generally limited in their scope and severity by strong bonds of Packet Pg. 800
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
kinship. Weapons used included bows and arrows, clubs, thrusting spears, daggers and slings. Wintu funerary practices required an individual to be buried the same day they died, or as soon as their relatives arrived.
Individuals were buried in a crouched p osition, with their elbows placed between their knees and their hands placed on their cheeks. They were then bundled in a deer or bearskin and buried. Funerary objects included personal effects of the deceased, the deceased’s dog, and a basket of acorn meal water (Heizer 1978).
Nine bands of northern Wintu people have resided within the area of the Northern River Valley and surrounding mountains from time immemorial, living with the abundant landscape. The area was a hub and intersection of trade and commerce. The awarding of the Rancho Bueno Verna Mexican Land Grant in 1844 to European-American (Mexican) settler Pierson B. Reading initiated the first European American settlement of the area. With the encroachment of Mexican and Anglo -Americans, the Indigenous Peoples of the regio n suffered greatly from violent displacement, epidemics of foreign diseases as well as State and Federal policies of extermination and removal. Many of the Wintu resided in the El -Pom (linguistically referred to as elpom) area where Redding would later be founded. They were among several tribes that were promised sanctuary and reservation land on the east side of the river with the Treaty of Cottonwood Creek of 1851, which was never honored nor ratified by the State or Federal government. Wintu descendants still reside in the area today.
Today, the Wintu practice aspects of and value their traditional culture. They are extremely outspoken about the protection of areas important to the tribe, as destruction of these places negatively affect emotional health of tribal members. In addition, tribal reorganization and recognition are important issues, which remain at the forefront (LaPena 2014).
3.3 DEIR REVISIONS
The following are additional revisions that have been made to the Draft EIR. These changes do not present new information and the analysis is consistent with the newly revised impact discussion therefore these changes do not constitute recirculation of the EIR.
ection 5.1, Aesthetics. The following revisions are made under the City of Redding Municipal Code heading and Tree Management Ordinance heading.
Local Regulations
City of Redding Municipal Code
The City of Redding Title 18, Zoning, identified the types of permitted land uses throughout the various districts. Division III, Base District Regulations, under this title identified applicable use regulations, criteria for site development, performance standards, and design regulations. These There criteria, standards and regulations are include specific for to residential zoning, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Division V , Overlay District Regulations, sets additional regulations for districts such as the Planned Development Overlay, Mixed-Use Overlay, Mixed -Use Neighborhood Overlay District, Design Review Overlay, and Specific Plan Overlay District.
Packet Pg. 801
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 169
Exterior Lighting
Section 18.40.090, Lighting, set standards for exterior lighting in commercial, office, and industrial developments to eliminate spillover light and glare. Section 18.41.090, Lighting, sets lighting standards for off- street parking areas for nonresidential uses providing parking spaces.
Tree Management Ordinance
Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, aims to protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the community, promote a healthy and attractive urban landscape, can recognize the importance of trees as a visual and physical buffer, preserve the city's valuable natural features, require the replacement of trees that are removed, establish a program for the planting of trees in new developments, and protect trees on undeveloped properties until such time as a development plan/building permit is approved.
Section 5.1, Aesthetics . The following revisions are made in Impact AES-4.
The General Plan Update could result in changes to the visual character and quality of Redding through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities. However, goals and policies in the proposed General Plan Update, combined with other local regulations, would reduce project- level aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level.
When combined with the overall growth trends in the region, the conversion of the area around the City from a ru
ral (homes on large land holdings) to a more urban appearance (more buildings, built environment) will change the visual appearance of the City and areas around the City. This continues a trend of development in the region that started when the City incorporated in 1887. While the proposed project does not change the existing land use pattern it does pull back planning area boundaries by approximately 18 percent to reduce the potential for annexation outside of the adopted sphere of influence. (See Figures 3-2 and 3-3) In addition, City policies in the General Plan as well as mandates from the state, encourage the efficient use of land and incentivize infill development.
ir Quality. The following revisions are made under the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) subheading.
Local and Regional Regulations
Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD has the responsibility of enforcing federal and State air quality regulations in Shasta County.
The SCAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs, and it regulates agricultural burning. All projects in Shasta County are subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Descriptions of specific rules applicable to the proposed project may include, but are not limited to:
Packet Pg. 802
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
SCAQMD Rule 2:6, Open Burning: General Provisions, states that burning in the City of Redding Shasta Lake is allowed on permissive burn days from November 1 to April 30 when the fire is ignited between the hours of 9:00 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM; fires must be completely out by 5:00 PM. This rule also discusses permit requirements for open outdoor burning.
Emissions heading.
The 2023-2045 General Plan includes Policy EJ3B in the Community Health, Wellness & draft Environmental Justice Element which directs the City to ensure that zoning and other development regulations require adequate buffering and/or effective technologies to protect sensitive land uses. Policy EJ3B states: generally, avoid siting new sensitive land uses (such as residences, day care centers, educational and/ or health facilities), within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, and/ or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week). Such buffers may vary in depth depending on the type and concentration of pollutants.
, Biological Resources. The following revisions are made under the Sensitive Natural Communities and Wildfire Corridors heading.
Sensitive Natural Communities and Wildlife Corridors
Three sensitive natural communities were identified during the literature review: Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest, and Great Valley Willow Scrub. These communities are restricted to areas immediately adjacent to the Sacramento River. Figure 5.4-3, Sensitive Natural Communities, depicts these sensitive natural communities.
A review of aerial imagery reveals that the three sensitive natural communities found in the SOI are connected by nar
row strips of habitat on the banks of the Sacramento River. Large portions of the SOI are urban, which effectively fragments the riparian habitat corridor from upland habitats in the surrounding area. Preservation of the remaining riparian areas along the Sacramento River corridor and tis its tributary streams will help preserve these sensitive natural communities and maintain connectivity with natural habitat areas outside the SOI.
The City of Redding Municipal Code includes Chapter 18.45, Tree Management Ordinance, which promotes the conservation of mature, healthy trees in the design of new development. In addition, Chapter 13.40, Trees and Shrubs, of the City’s Municipal Code regulates trees on public areas and plant strips. The General Plan Update includes Policy NR6C which calls for periodic review of the Tree Management Ordinance to assess current standards and programs to protect, preserve, restore, and replant native trees and to amend the ordinance as may be necessary. As well as Policy NR6E which considers undertaking measures to maintain and expand the urban forest such as reviewing and updating the Heritage Tree provisions of RMC Section Packet Pg. 803
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 171
13.40.020, particularly as part of and establishing an urban forestry program should be established.
Therefore, the General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The SOI is not within a HCPs, NCCPs or other habitat conservation plans (CDFW 2023). No impact would occur.
Redding Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) subheading.
Redding Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
Under the Federal Disaster Act of 2000, jurisdictions are required to prepare Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) that are subject to state review. The City of Redding LHMP assesses hazard vulnerabilities and identifies mitigation actions that the City w ill pursue in order to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption that might otherwise result from such events. The actions address hazards, as well as specific activities for wildland fire; flood; hazardous material; severe winter weather; earthquakes; utility disruption; aviation disaster; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives (CBRNE); dam overflow or failure; and volcanic issues. The most recent update to the City of Redding Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the City in 2023 (Redding 2023a).
The Redding Fire Department (RFD) Operations Division is responsible for emergency management in the Ci
ty of Redding. The City Fire Chief is the Emergency Services Coordinator responsible for maintaining and updating the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP); the City adopted its current LHMP in 20232021.
The RFD provides emergency responses to hazardous materials incidents in the city. As needed, the RFD is assisted by the Shasta-Cascade Hazardous Materials Response Team (SCHMRT), a multiagency team based in Shasta County and serving the counties of Shasta, Tehama, Trinity, Siskiyou, and Modoc (Redding 2015b). The RFD is currently working with the community to update and prepare the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022 (Redding 2022a).
Drainage subheading.
Surface Water and Drainage
Regional Drainage
Redding is in the Lower Sacramento Watershed, which spans about 20,125 square miles, including the Sacramento Valley, the northern Sierra Nevada, the south end of the Cascade Range, and some of the eastern slopes of the northern Coast Ranges (see Figure 5. 10-1, Lower Sacramento Watershed and Clear Creek - Sacramento River Subbasin) (USGS 2022). The Lower Sacramento watershed is divided into several subbasins.
The city is in the Clear Creek-Sacramento River Subbasin, which spans about 686 square miles—almost entirely in Shasta County—including the north end of the Sacramento Valley and extending northwest into the Klamath Trinity Mountains and east into the Cascade Range (see Figure 5.10 -1) (CDFW 2022). The Sacramento River passes north-south through the central part of the watershed.
Packet Pg. 804
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
The City of Redding and surroundings are set on plains in the north end of the Sacramento Valley and dissected by numerous rivers and streams emerging from the Klamath and Northern Coast Range Trinity Mountains to the west and the Cascade Range to the north and east. The two nearest streams to the Planning Area— the Sacramento River and Churn Creek about 0.5 -mile to the east— both originate in the Cascade Range to the north.
Drain System heading.
Storm Drain System
The City’s storm drainage system is comprised of multiple networks of inlets, pipes, and basins that flow to the Sacramento River, Clear Creek, Churn Creek, and other tributary streams, or to terminal (retention) basins that percolate stormwater into the ground. The City’s storm drain system includes over 18 miles of open drainage channels and ditches, 5,200 catch basins and inlets, 129 miles of storm drain pipes and 570 curb miles of streetside gutters (Redding 2003; 2019).
Section 5.13, Noise. The following revisions are made in Section 5.13.5, Cumulative Impacts.
5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts
NOI-5: Buildout of the General Plan 2040, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise. The analysis of the proposed project, discussed above, addresses cumulative impacts with regard to noise, groundborne noise, and vibration. Similarly, the noise contours and traffic- related noise levels developed for the proposed project include and account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in the Redding Planning Area. Noise contours were based on both existing and projected future traffic volumes that incorporate cumulative regional effects and trends. Cumulative development conditions would result in increased cumulative roadways noise levels. Consequently, the proposed project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable and is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Fire History
According to the Redding Fire Department’s Incident Statistics, the City saw a 12 percent increase in the number of incidents from 2016 to 2019 with the number of fire incidents peaking in 2018 at 515 fire incidents.
Building and vegetation fires compose the majority of these fire incidents, with an average of 156 vegetation fires and 147 building fires reported across the four periods.
In addition to urban fires, Redding has experienced impacts from a number of wildfires in the county that exhibited extreme fire behavior due to an extended drought period, forest health, and climatic conditions. One of the most destructive fires to impact Redding in recent years was the Carr Fire. The Carr Fire started on July 23, 2018, in Whiskeytown National Park and grew to 229,651 acres, resulting in the evacuation of more than Packet Pg. 805
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 173
36,000 people, with eight seven confirmed fire personnel and civilian fatalities attributed to the fire and the destruction of 1,614 structures (CAL FIRE 2023b). A total of 270 homes in Redding were destroyed as a result of the Carr Fire (Chandler 2019). In September of 2021, the Fawn Fire burned over 8,500 acres north of Redding and forced the evacuation of more than 4,000 residents of the area (Arthur & Chapman 2021).
Catastrophic wildfires, such as the 2018 Carr Fire, can create favorable conditions for other hazards, such as flooding and landslides during the rainy season. Wildfires on steep slopes can burn the vegetation that stabilizes the slope and create hydrophobic conditions that prevent the ground from absorbing water. This can lead to landslides, debris flows, and flooding. A project would result in a significant impact if—due to slopes, drainage patterns, or post-fire slope instability—it would expose people or structures to significant risks from landsides, debris flows, or flooding.
As discussed in Chapter 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, R edding contains lands within the 100-year, 200-year, and 500-year floodplain. As shown in Figure 5.10 -3, Flood Zones Map, floodplains are primarily concentrated around the Sacramento River and numerous tributary streams that travel through the city. As discussed in Chapter 5.7, Geology and Soils, the western and northern portions of the city are in landslide- susceptible areas, with many of the moderate to high landslide potential areas coinciding w ith Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Many of the high landslide potential areas are on the steep slopes of canyons that have been carved out by rivers and creeks, creating overlapping flood -prone and landslide- prone areas in the steep slopes of the western portion of the city. This overlap may cause areas outside of a flood hazard or landslide- susceptible zone to be affected by runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes following a wildfire.
Justice Element heading.
6.5 COMMUNITY HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT As part of the City's General Plan Update, State law requires the City to evaluate the potential impacts to disadvantaged communities (DAC's). SB 1000 provides two definitions of a DAC, one based on CalEnviroScreen scores and the other based on the presence of low-income areas with high pollution burden.
The City contains 17 census tracts with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income, which are considered "low-income areas" under the second definition of an already within the City. As no annexation will occur this would increase pressure to build at higher densities in the City.
Forestry Resources.
Packet Pg. 806
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
7.5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTY RESOURCES
Due to the substantial reduction in potential development in the Planning Area, which includes conversion of prime farmland and farmland of local importance as well as forestland (Blue Oak Woodland, Blue Oak Foothill Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Valley Oak Woodland land cover types), under this alternative would be less than those identified for the proposed General Plan. However, as the City limits already includes prime farmland and farmland of local importan ce (Figure 5.2-1, Designated farmland within the City of Redding) as well as forestland (Figure 5.4 -1, CalVeg – Land Cover) development would result in conversion of these resources therefore impacts would remain significant and unavailable unavoidable.
Forestry Resources.
7.5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTY RESOURCES
Like the proposed project, this alternative would allow for conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural use because it applies nonagricultural designations on some farmlands. However, this alternative would reduce the need for annexation which would reduce the potential to convert prime agricultural/forestland resources.
The proposed project includes new policies strive to protect agricultural resources, including retaining and pro
tecting agricultural lands through the use of proactive land use techniques and requiring that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development to protect lands used for agricultural purposes.
The proposed prosed project’s policies would also apply to this alternative. The benefits under this alternative as opposed to the proposed project would be the reduced potential to convert agricultural and forestland (of Blue Oak Woodland, Blue Oak-Foothill Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Valley Oak Woodland land cover types); however, some conversion would still occur. Therefore, impacts to agriculture and forestland would be significant and unavoidable but less than the proposed project.
hapter 5.2, Aesthetics. The following revisions are made to Impact AES-1.
General Plan Update also includes policies aimed to preserve the visual quality and scenic views within the City and ensure that new development would be aesthetically compatible with surrounding areas:
Policy CDD4D: Work to ensure the design and construction of new bridges complements the surrounding landscape as appropriate.
Policy CDD8H: Strive to ensure that new developments reflect the existing physical characteristics, building design, streetscape, open space requirements, and urban form that preserve and contribute to the overall character and livability of the established neighborhood. Policy CDD12A: Establish design standards for new development that will create more livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, as funding allows. Promote compatibility between land uses by minimizing impacts to privacy, views, and noise and protecting against intrusions of neighborhood traffic.
Packet Pg. 807
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 175
Policy CDD14A: Consider establishing design and performance standards for commercial development to ensure that building and site design are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, building patterns, building details, location of parking, signage, and landscape and enhance views from major streets and other public areas.
The Public Resources Code §12220(g) defines “Forest land” as land that can support 10 -per cent native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. As noted in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, there are a total of 16,466 acres of forested area in the City’s SOI (Blue Oak Woodland, Blue O ak-Foothill Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Valley Oak Woodland). Although, buildout in accordance with the General Plan Update would largely consist of infill and redevelopment, development under the proposed project can create aesthetic impacts through the conversion of forest to non-forest lands.
The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, which outlines tree removal provisions, tree protection guidelines, and other provisions concerning trees and their management. The ordinance is intended to protect and enhance the community’s aesthetic provided by native and non -native trees. The ordinance also sets requirements for the replacement of removed trees, establishes a tree planting program for new development, and requires a tree removal permit for removal of trees on vacant or undeveloped land. In addition, the General Plan Update includes Policy R13I from the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element which states the City will update the City’s Tree Management Ordinance as necessary to reflect current standards and programs to protect, preserve, restore and replant native trees. In addition, the Natural Resources Element includes policies aimed at preserving and protecting trees from future development such as Policy NR6A which seeks to preserve and protect existing native oaks in the design and review of development projects. Policy NR6B considers identifying appropriate “areas” to be used for the planting of native trees to offset development impacts to woodland resources. Therefore, following the City’s Municipal Code and propose d General Plan Update policies would ensure that development under the General Plan Update would not substantially degrade the views and visual character of the City. Impacts on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, would be less than significant.
, Chapter 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The following revisions are made to Impact AG-2.
The proposed project does not require a zone change or general plan amendment and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. The General Plan Update would continue to allow residential categories which allow for housing and permit agricultural uses. Furthermore, there are currently no Williamson Act contracts within the SOI. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or existing Williamson contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
There are no areas zoned as forestland in the City of Redding. The Redding Zoning Code and General Plan zone and designate Rural Lands (RL) and Open Space/Greenway, respectively, for agricultural and open spaces but does not specify forest or timberland. Forest and timber lands defined by the State include both land that is used for timber harvesting and other forested land that has aesthetic, recreational, and biological amenities.
Packet Pg. 808
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E F I N A L E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
The General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forestland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, no impact would occur.
See Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this EIR in regard to consideration of aesthetics of trees as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g).
The Public Resources Code §12220(g) defines “Forest land” as land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Many of the undeveloped areas in the City include at least 10 -percent native tree cover and allow for management of such resources. Future development under the General Plan 2045 may result in the loss of forest land and/or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The proposed Planning Area includes over 11,000 acres set aside as “Greenway” (i.e. open space).
The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, which outlines tree removal provisions, tree protection guidelines, and other provisions concerning trees and their management. The ordinance is intended to protect and enhance the communit y’s aesthetic provided by native and non -native trees. The ordinance also sets requirements for the replacement of removed trees, establishes a tree planting program for new development, and requires a tree removal permit for removal of trees on vacant or undeveloped land. The ordinance addresses methods of preserving trees including preserving stands of trees rather than individual trees as they provide better habitat, and designating suitable land in an open space area that retains as many protected trees as possible while providing for tree growth consistent with healthy forest practices. In addition, the General Plan Update includes Policy R13I from the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element which states the City will update the City’s Tree Management Ordinance as necessary to reflect current standards and programs to protect, preserve, restore and replant native trees. In addition, the Natural Resources Element includes policies aimed at preserving and protecting trees from future development such as Pol icy NR6A which seeks to preserve and protect existing native oaks in the design and review of development projects. Policy NR6B considers identifying appropriate "areas" to be used for the planting of native trees to offset development impacts to woodland resources. Regardless, trees may be removed in the course implementing the General Plan and while they may be replanted, there will be a loss of forest land as defined by the Public Resources Code, therefore this impact is significant and unavoidable.
under the Contributing EIR Consultants header.
CONTRIBUTING EIR CONSULTANTS
▪ ECORP Consulting, Inc.
▪ GHD Consultants
Packet Pg. 809
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 177
3.4 CHANGES IN THE GENERAL PLAN
The following are additional revisions that have been made to the policies in the General Plan. These changes do not present new information and the analysis is consistent with the newly revised impact discussion therefore these changes do not constitute recirculation of the EIR.
Economic Development Element
ED2E - Encourage Support the use of opportunity zones and other programs to areas attracting similar economic investment incentives and opportunities.
ED2F - Endeavor to hHost Host or promote a consolidated directory of community events and local happenings to encourage community engagement with the business community, as staff resources and funding permits.
ED2G - Strive to ensure Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are updated as necessary to accommodate next-generation technology.
ED2H - Endeavor to iImprove I mprove City resources for businesses and business representatives, for user- friendliness and to incorporate plain language where possible.
ED4A - Strive to regularly R egularly assess the availability and cost of housing, and to pursue available programs Address housing shortages and costs to help ensure that people who work in Redding can live in Redding.
ED5F - Endeavor to leverage Leverage the economic opportunities for tourism of key natural assets such as the Sacramento River.
ED6G - Explore the possibility of Engage in partnerships with trade organizations and government and nongovernment partners affiliates to provide tax incentives and create special business districts to promote trade through the Redding Regional Airport.
ED8A - Work to leverage L everage unified community partnerships to support the development and promotion of youth programs in the City, as appropriate.
ED12A - Strive to lLeverage Leverage the strengths of existing economic development partnerships and non- profit organizations in the community to maximize the benefits of its their respective areas of expertise in the economic development arena.
ED12B - Endeavor to work with Connect non-profit organizations on projects of interest to foster and support a collaborative environment in seeking funding and project execution.
ED13A - SetConsider establishing broadband service goals and Dev elop a targeted approach to digital inclusion through the expansion of public Wi -Fi in Downtown, parks, community centers, and other key areas of economic interest. Ensure affordability and strive to reduce barriers for the equitable deployment of emerging technologies and infrastructure around broadband and telecommunication services to attract employers and businesses to Redding. consider developing an action plan for promoting and encouraging service deployment and adoption.
ED13G - Work to reduce barriers to Eelectrification, EV charging infrastructure, and Autonomous Vehicle Technology in Redding, to the extent feasible.
ED14C - Seek to fFosterFoster a culture of solution-based decision-making at all levels of local government which to provide consistent and clear outcomes for members of the public.
Packet Pg. 810
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Community Development and Design Element
CDD2B - To the extent feasible, newN Require new developments shall to maintain adequate service levels for existing development while providing for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services, as appropriate.
CDD3D - Encou rage Require new development to work with existing site topography to avoid mass grading to the extent feasible while addressing access, drainage, and other development considerations. Where feasible, substantial fill slopes visible from roads, parks, and other public areas should be designed to mimic natural land contours.
CDD4G - Consider a review Pe riodically review of the River and Creek Corridor Development Ordinance to verify whether the specific setback/buffer requirements are appropriate.
CDD4H - Work
to minimize Minimize the impact of erosion, grading, and filling on sensitive habitat areas by designing and building sites to drain efficiently. Continue to require review and approval of erosion control and grading plans from all development projects on river and creek corridors prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
CDD7D - Con
sider As appropriate, develop graphic standards and artistic directional signage for local streets, plazas, the river, trails, community centers, and other landmarks focused on local identity, aesthetics, and visibility to establish a high -quality, appropriate, and attractive brand identity and design as a key strategy to enhance the quality of life, the community, and promote tourism and economic development.
CDD8C - As opportunities allow, collaborate with other public, private, and non-pr ofit agencies to document architecturally and culturally significant buildings and structures, including expanding/refining the City’s Candidate List of Historic Structures and the Qualified List of Historic Structures to better understand the historic nature of these properties.
CDD8F - Wor k with local organizations and property owners to create incentives to encourage the protection and preservation of historic buildings and structures to prevent, to the extent feasible, their demolition.
CDD9A - Encourage R equire new residential, office, and commercial development to shall reflect enduring, and interesting, and attractive designs, and to provide community amenities, as appropriate.
CDD 9B
Incorporates Crime prevention Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, as appropriate.
CDD10B - Consi der establishing Develop zoning standards, design guidelines, incentives, and an expedited development and building permit application and review process to encourage infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in the City, as appropriate.
CDD10E - Consider Develop a program to identify and define the vision of infill priority areas, urban nodes, the Opportunity Areas depicted in Figure CDD -5, and the Focus Areas identified in this General Plan, and establish specific development goals and guidelines as appropriate. Strive to ensure that developers of new residential, commercial, and mixed -use developments in these infill priority areas have sufficient guidance to understand the goals of each area.
CDD11B - Maxi mum residential densities within a given range of the land use classifications of this General Plan are appropriate for projects that demonstrate superior design features and amenities and/or the development is an affordable housing project that is supported by financial aid or other assistance provided by the City of Redding. Site constraints may dictate that the maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed by the General Plan classification for a given parcel of land may not be realized.
Packet Pg. 811
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 179
CDD11F - Consider establishing Establish objective residential design standards that address such items as natural features, visibility of structures, variations in building design features such as massing, articulation, roof form, street presentation, garage placement, usable open space, access, and the relationship to surrounding uses.
Site constraints may dictate that the maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed by the General Plan classification for a given parcel of land may not be realized.
CDD11I - Consider amending Amend the Zoning Ordinance as may be necessary to provide opportunities for such uses as daycare facilities, places of worship, residential care facilities for the elderly, public and private schools, small grocery stores, and other neighborhood-serving uses to be established in appropriate residential neighborhoods, provided that they are located and designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. (EJ) CDD12E - Pursue the establishment of Establish priorities for infrastructure improvements, based in part on neighborhood needs for those areas that can most benefit from such improvements given documented infrastructure issues, as funding becomes available.
CDD13A - St
rive to ensure Ensure commercial lands identified for future development meet the existing and projected market demand for local, community, and regional commercial activity. Consider requiring the following information be provided with proposals to amend the General Plan Diagram:
Proposed amendments to establish additional retail commercial sites, not initiated by the Planning Commission or the C
ity Council, will be considered appropriate when it is demonstrated that there is a need for such site(s) within a 5-year time horizon. All applicants seeking such amendment to the General Plan Diagram generally of two acres or larger in area should provide a detailed analysis that demonstrates that the approval of the amendment will help to implement goals and policies of the General Plan in two or more of the following areas:
Provides needed neighborhood services to an otherwise underserved geographic area in a manner that complements adjacent existing or planned development.
Provides needed neighborhood services to an otherwise underserved geographic area in a manner that complements adjacent existing or planned development.
Accommodates a mix of uses in addition to commercial use at an appropriate location as addressed by the policies of this General Plan.
Provides opportunities for regional commercial development at an appropriate location and scale in accordance with the policies of this General Plan.
The parameters of the analysis shall be determined by the Director of Development Services based on the characteristics of each site. Demonstrating only that a particular location would be economically viable for an intended use will not constitute, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for approval of a General Plan amendment. Applications to amend the classification of an existing site intended to provide neighborhood services to another use should demonstrate, through an appropriate analysis as determined by the Director of Development Services, that the proposed amendment will further the goals and policies of the General Plan related to future housing and neighborhood or community-level retail and related services.
CDD13B -
Strive to provide Provide sufficient opportunity to satisfy the retail market demand by allowing a range of site sizes and locations, while ensuring, to the extent feasible, that reclassification of land for commercial uses will not:
Conflict with policies that encourage multiple-family uses in close proximity to retail and service uses and along transportation corridors.
Packet Pg. 812
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Conflict with policies of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. Reduce the supply of multiple-family lands as necessary to satisfy the long -term housing needs for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in the community.
CDD13E - C onsider requiring Require overall development plans for all shopping centers and regional centers be approved before allowing the development of individual uses within a planned center as appropriate. It is desirable that site and building design reflect excellence and quality and be compatible with surrounding development.
CDD14A - Cons ider establishing Establish design and performance standards for commercial development as may be appropriate to ensure that building and site design are vibrant, convenient, attractive, and are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, building patterns, building details, location, and visibility of parking, signage, and landscape and enhance views from major streets and other public areas.
CDD14B - Co
nsider requiring Require that the design of large commercial projects, shopping centers, and regional scale developments incorporate plazas, courtyards, and other outdoor gathering places, pedestrian connections and appropriate amenities through parking lots, and pedestrian connections to adjacent residential neighborhoods, as appropriate.
CDD14F - Consider a Utilize a neighborhood-informed approach in determining the appropriate mix and form of commercial uses in infill priority areas. Encourage existing commercial centers to add residential and other appropriate uses, taking advantage of available land, services, and parking to enhance community needs.
CDD15B - Con
sider requiring Require that new developments should to include landscape and signage plans along with other project details during the pre-application and/or formal application process for review.
CDD18A - Place new electric distribution lines underground in new development where feasible appropriate.
CDD18B - Place existing overhead distribution lines underground upon development of the abutting property where feasible appropriate.
Public Facilities Element
PF1B - Consider requiring Require all new development, including major modifications to existing development, to construct or provide a fair share contribution toward the construction of any off -site improvements as appropriate to offset project impacts and/or support the project, ensuring that established service levels are maintained.
PF1E - Work toward requiring Require t
hat infrastructure be designed and constructed to meet ultimate capacity needs, pursuant to a master plan, so as to avoid the need for expensive retrofitting to the extent feasible.
PF1J - Strive to ensure E nsure that the considerable public investment made in existing and new utility and street infrastructure is reliable and meets the existing and projected service demands.
PF2C - Consider Identify s trategic locations for distribution of police beats to ensure optimum response times to all residents.
PF3A - Strive to maintain an ISO rating of 2 3 or
better.
PF3D - Endeavor to implement Implement the California Building Code and any local ordinances to protect life, control fire losses and fire protection costs through the use of automatic suppression systems. Adequate water supplies to construct fire suppression infrastructure as necessary should be available.
PF3F - Strive to ensure Ensure ,
through development review, that projects adequately address on-site fire safety and protection and comply with applicable fire and building codes.
Packet Pg. 813
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 181
PF4C - Consider requiring Require water distribution systems to be interconnected (“looped”) wherever feasible to facilitate the reliable delivery of water anywhere in the City.
PF4F - Strive to maintain M aintain, to the extent feasible, adequate water supply during emergencies.
PF9A - Consider preparing Prepare and maintain a strategic improvement plan for the Corporation Yard to address long-term needs, including, but not limited to:
Ultimate land area;
Types of buildings and structures;
Indoor and outdoor material storage;
Screening;
Office space; and
Access and storage for vehicles and equipment.
PF10B - Consider identifying I dentify appropriate location(s) for grade separations at railroad crossings and pursue their construction as appropriate.
PF12B - Continue to work with Shasta County City of Anderson to maintain partnership in funding library operations consistent with current commitments and growing over time.
PF12C - Continue to support and partner with local library support groups, the California State Library, and others to further enhance library collections and programming.
PF14D - Strive to identify Continue to identify and pursue alternative funding sources that can be used for capital improvement project construction, staffing and ongoing maintenance of public improvements.
Endeavor to expand the search for grant funding.
Natural Resources Element
NR1D - Strive to ensure Ensure that erosion control devices are installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the grading ordinance, NPDES, conditions of granting permit approval, and any other applicable requirements; and that project monitoring and erosion-control enforcement activities are undertaken to ensure that that the facilities function effectively.
NR2D - Conduct a periodic assessment of existing water sources and infrastructure capabilities to identify vulnerable areas with insufficient water supply for effective fire suppression. Evaluate the feasibility of constructing water storage facilities or other infrastructure, considering capacity requirements during peak fire seasons in identified high-risk areas as necessary.
NR3A - Prioritize and strive to avoid Avoid impacts to groundwater recharge areas through open space preservation, runoff management, stream setbacks, clustering of development, and Low Impact Development (LID) treatment where appropriate.
NR3B - Consider working Work with local, state, regional, and tribal agencies to:
Identify and map groundwater recharge areas within the Sphere of Influence and protect, improve, and enhance groundwater quality of the region, and
Encourage and support those responsible for soil, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination to initiate, monitor, and complete full remediation activities.
Packet Pg. 814
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
NR4A - Prioritize avoidance/minimization of Avoid development-related disturbances of sensitive habitats and “special status species” by encouraging innovative site design and planning. Ensure implementation of statutory protection for these species and require appropriate mitigation if disturbed.
NR4B - Work t o preserve Prioritize the preservation and enhance enhancement of the fisheries of the Sacramento River and those tributary streams and stream segments depicted in Figure 1 and/or other streams or water bodies identified by appropriate regulatory agencies.
NR4F - Prioritize retaining Ci
ty-owned properties that contain environmentally sensitive areas should be retained, placed in conservation easements, or otherwise protected from urban encroachment.
NR5B - In addition to the protection of the stream corridors depicted in Figure 1, work with project developers to also protect those secondary stream tributaries depicted in Figure 4, vernal pools, riparian habitats, and wetlands in their natural state, to the extent feasible. Where appropriate, undertake restoration and provide require development buffers from these resources. The mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources and, if applicable, threatened or endangered species, is required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting such resources, and if applicable, threatened or endangered species.
NR6D - Strive to protect Protect and manage the urban forest to reduce energy demand, increase carbon sequestration, and reduce urban heat gain.
NR6E - Consider undertaking Und ertake measures to maintain and expand the urban forest bysuch as:
Maintaining existing City trees through regular, scheduled service as resources allow. Planting new trees, to replace those that require removal and to enhance the street tree canopy, where needed appropriate.
Requiring street and parking lot tree planting in new developments. Working with commercial parking lot owners to improve the shade canopy. Implementing the Zoning Code’s tree protection regulations. Using volunteer groups and property owners to plant new trees, care for newly-planted trees, maintain young trees, and provide information and instructions regarding such care and maintenance. Exploring available funding opportunities for the urban forest program. Incorporatinge existing trees into development projects where appropriate , while utilizing effective construction practices to minimize to avoid impacts to those trees. Periodically reviewing the landscape requirements of the RMC, including, but not limited to, the off - street parking and landscape standards ordinances as well as the species and other information contained in the City’s “Street Tree List.”
Consider undertaking the review, update, and implementation of the Heritage Tree provisions of RMC Section 13.40.020, particularly as part of an urban forestry program should a program be established.
NR7A - Strive to maintain Maintain, preserve, and enhance the habitat linkages/wildlife corridors and sensitive habitats that are created by the open- space (“Greenway”) network established by this General Plan. Require that development in areas defined as “Greenway” consider corridor impacts and, where necessary, provide alternate usable links between habitat types or areas and/or provide alternate development plans that avoid the open-space network and sensitive habitats.
NR8B - Strive to preserve Preserve land
publicly dedicated as open space. Development in these areas, except as required to provide public facilities, such as roads, utilities, and trails, should be restricted to passive, low - impact uses that minimize the removal of existing vegetation and maintain or increase the existing habitat value, Packet Pg. 815
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 183
while providing adequate protection from wildland fires. Coordinate with other entities as appropriate to establish conservation easements that will ensure long-term protection and necessary maintenance.
NR13D - E ncourage efforts to reduce Reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging mixed-use development, promoting a jobs/housing balance, and encouraging alternative transportation such as walking, cycling, and use of public transit.
NR13G - Consider referring Refer all project applications that involve sensitive receptor uses that would be constructed in proximity to freeways, industrial uses, truck routes, petroleum fuel stations and similar uses to the SCAQMD for comment and recommendations. (EJ)
NR14B - Strive to reduceReduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development by encouraging development that lowers vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and discouraging auto-dependent sprawl and dependence on the private automobile; promoting development that is compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly, and transit-oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; improving the jobs/housing ratio; and other methods of reducing emissions while maintaining the balance of housing types and stock.
NR14D - Consi
der theUtilize appropriate use of CEQA streamlining mechanisms for projects that are consistent with this General Plan and its EIR.
NR14E - Work toward establishing Est ablish a formal internal process for use in the project review stage to determine and document the following criteria established are in evidence for projects where streamlining is proposed.
Public Safety Element
PS2C - Consider the update of the Periodically update the Community Development and Design Element and the General Plan Diagram to reflect the current floodplain mapping data provided by FEMA and local studies such as the City’s Montgomery-Watson study. As funding is available, update these local studies to ensure that they reflect the best available information. Make maps available and accessible showing updated flood projections from a 100-year storm event; update the maps as new information is available.
PS2E - Strive to preserve Preserve the river and creek corridors , and strictly limit by strictly limiting development in areas subject to flooding from a 100 -year storm event. Allow minor encroachments into floodplains if it can be demonstrated that such encroachments will not impact other properties or significantly contribute to a cumulative effect of other encroachments.
PS4B - All Design new development and redevelopment projects should be designed to meet state and local standards for fire protection; encourage the upgrade of existing structures to current standards. Encourage the installation of smoke detectors in residential and commercial facilities constructed prior to the requirement of their installation, as appropriate.
PS4C - As resources allow, enforce Apply appropriate existing codes and standards, to ensure all new and existing developments provide:
Defensible space.
Non-combustible design with appropriate building exterior and roofing materials. Spark-arresting systems, fire alarms, and fire sprinkler systems are installed.
PS4E - Consider Prio ritize developing and funding a comprehensive vegetation management and weed - abatement program, beyond the wildfire mitigation through the Electric Utility, for City-owned properties and Packet Pg. 816
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
open-space areas, including those that are located in existing subdivisions and in new developments, to prevent and reduce the risk of fire.
PS4G - Consider establishing D evelop a program to construct and maintain fire- access roads in ravine areas considered to have a very high fire danger to enhance the ability to suppress wildland fires. These roads need not be surfaced and may also function as part of the City’s trail system. Erosion and impacts to native vegetation and natural features should be minimized.
PS4M - Seek to construct Construct emergency-vehicle access routes to open-space areas at optimal locations within projects during the development process, as funding or law allows. As funding and physical conditions allow, construct such access routes in existing developments where warranted.
PS4N - Strive to ensure Ensure new
subdivisions have adequate fire protection measures such as multi-access for firefighting apparatus, noncombustible building construction, appropriate defensible space, and street widths and grade to accommodate emergency vehicles and evacuees simultaneously.
PS7C - Consider establishing E
stablish avigation easements for new development in the vicinity of the Redding Regional Airport and Benton Airpark as appropriate to address overflight noise and other potential aviation- related impacts.
PS8D - Consider requiring that residences E nforce requirements for residences and businesses to maintain visible and clearly legible street address numbers, as may be required by in accordance with state and local regulations, to shorten the response time of emergency personnel.
PS8E - Strive Work to ensure the continued functioning of critical facilities and the establishment of cooling, warming and clean air centers, as a part of an extreme weather preparedness program. Endeavor to partner Partner with appropriate community groups and jurisdictions to develop and implement refuge centers in case of extreme weather, disease, or evacuation due to declared emergency. Consider adaptive reuse of public and community facilities to serve as shelters during crisis events.
PS9D - Strive to route Route vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials along transportation corridors that reduce the risk of exposure to the public and sensitive environmental areas to the extent feasible.
PS9H - Endeavor Continue to educate residents and businesses on the need to reduce or eliminate the use of, and/or proper disposal of, hazardous materials and products. Encourage the use of safe, non- toxic, environment-friendly equivalents for community well-being.
PS9I - Strive Work to attract and maintain clean industries and businesses in the City and discourage the expansion of industries, with exception of healthcare and related medical facilities, that require on- site treatment of hazardous industrial waste.
PS10C - Strive to ensure M aintain the operational readiness of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in conjunction with other local, State, and Federal agencies. Work toward conducting training for staff on, and maintaining, testing, and updating plans and equipment to meet current standards, as necessary.
Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element EJ1E – Support accessible and culturally appropriate opportunities and social events that strengthen the sense of community and celebrates diversity for all people regardless of ability, age, race, color, national origin, language, gender identity, sexual orientation, housing status, or income levels.
EJ4B – Consider using Use appropriate tools to identify locations with tree canopy cover gaps and seek funding as appropriate to implement measures to expand tree planting within neighborhoods that lack desirable tree canopy coverage.
Packet Pg. 817
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 185
EJ5D – Strive Support efforts to increase the number of ADA -compliant housing units in the community to meet the needs of residents of all abilities, especially in those projects where the City participates in the funding of housing development. Identify incentives that may lead to the development of more accessible units developed by the private market.
EJ5E – Strive to ensure that Prio ritize ensuring that building and zoning code compliance inspections taken in response to complaints result in a reduction and remediation of housing-related health risks in the City. When resolving complaints, strive to prevent avoid unnecessary evictions or displacement of housing-precarious populations within the City.
EJ5I – Consider working Wo rk with landlords in prioritizing the City’s efforts to address issues such as dumping, overcrowding, graffiti, unpermitted plumbing and electrical, and lack of building and yard maintenance in areas with underserved and vulnerable residents.
EJ6D – When updating public facility master plans, consider prioritizing pri oritize projects that address the health and safety of residents whose facilities need remediation over facility expansions wherever appropriate.
EJ6E – Strive to ensure Ensure that r esidents have access to a variety of recreational amenities by adhering to the policies of the Community Development and Design; Natural Resources; Parks, Trails, and Recreation; and Public Safety Elements of this General Plan; and the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. Consult with representatives of local Wintu tribes as appropriate to locate and construct with cultural considerations in mind.
EJ6H – Consider prioritizing Prio ritize improvements to sidewalks and the pedestrian environment in the Disadvantaged Communities and areas around schools and parks as funding allows.
EJ7G – Consider and Work with appropriate agencies and organizations to implement emergency policies and procedures that appropriately allow service and companion animals to be permitted access to emergency facilities.
EJ7H - Consider partnering with community groups and agencies to establish a public on -demand service to evacuate residents during an emergency.
EJ9E - Collaborate with schools, youth, and other public and private organizations to promote a sense of community and overall well-being by engaging families, children, teens, and seniors of all cultural backgrounds and abilities in healthy lifestyle behavior, daily physical activity, and social engagement.
Transportation Element
T3A - Support the provision of enhanced transit service that is timely, cost- effective, responsive to growth patterns, and meets the diverse needs of existing and future transit demand by: (EJ) Working with the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) and public transit providers including the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) on an ongoing basis to plan and implement additional public transit services.
Supporting, to the extent feasible and as funding allows, the continuation and expansion of private commercial or nonprofit bus operations to provide additional regional transit opportunities for residents.
Promoting coordination of public transit, on- demand service, autonomous vehicles , intercity rail, bicycle share program, intercity bus, and air transportation services to enhance the transportation options available for residents and visitors to the Redding community. Supporting, to the extent feasible and as funding allows, provision of intercity bus service.
Packet Pg. 818
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Developing policies and procedures to implement shared mobility devices to help enhance public transit options. These micro- transit shared mobility type devices could include scooters and, e-bikes, and autonomous vehicles, and but may be expanded as technology develops.
T4A - Support measures that help reduce VMT below regional averages on a “residential per capita” and “per employee” basis by:
Monitoring traffic trends through advanced technological solutions to determine mobility options, infrastructure improvements, and development decisions. Encouraging employers, colleges, and schools to provide incentives and facilities (e.g., showers) for employees and students utilizing alternatives to the single- occupant automobile, such as carpools, vanpools, buses, bicycling, and walking.
Encouraging employers, including government agencies, to allow telecommuting and flex time and to promote staggered shifts or base work hours that do not coincide with peak -period traffic, to reduce peak-hour trips.
T4B - Consider establishing an EV/AV Commercialization Opportunities Work Group to analyze and prioritize the development and deployment of advancing autonomous vehicle technology. Ensure that – the full range of tools and smart infrastructure required are readily available or developed in partnership with service providers
all levels of automated vehicles advance the City’s adopted Vision Zero policies the system contributes to improved time reliability and system efficiency by reducing vehicle miles traveled; and
the system benefits all segments of the community.
T4BT4C – Prioritize infill and mixed-use development, and encourage new development in close proximity to existing employment, housing, schools, commercial centers, and other services and amenities as addressed in the Community Development and Design Element.
T6A - Strive to retain alleys and
streets in the Downtown area to create shared spaces for bicycling and walking, and convenient service access, to local businesses.
T7B – Endeavor Pe riodically review to ensure that required parking provisions for private development and modify as necessary to support efforts to encourage multimodal travel and reduce VMT by:
Pursuing Evaluating the use of maximum and minimum standards for automobile parking spaces in transit corridors and Downtown to promote use of alternate modes of travel as may be appropriate. Pursuing minimum standards for bicycle parking, including both long -term and short- term bicycle parking spaces.
T7C – Ge nerally, prohibit avoid on-street automobile parking on arterial streets if there is not adequate space for bike lanes and parking lanes outside the Downtown area to reduce congestion and conflicts.
T10D – Strive to protect Pr otect through zoning existing/planned rail alignments and facilities through zoning from encroachment by new, potentially incompatible land uses, to the extent feasible.
T10F – Strive Seek funding as appropriate for the construction to provide for of additional grade-separated railroad crossings at South Bonnyview Road and in the Downtown area.
Packet Pg. 819
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 187
Figure Changes in the General Plan
The following section addresses the revisions that have been made to the Figures in the General Plan. Table
3.5-1, Figure Changes, references the revised General Plan Figure and DEIR Figures and a discussion about how the revised figures would affect the DEIR.Due to changes to the planning area boundary, six DEIR figures have been revised to reflect these changes. As noted in the discussion in the table below, these changes do not present new information and the analysis is consistent with the discussion th erefore these changes do not constitute recirculation of the EIR.
Packet Pg. 820
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Table 3.5-1 Figure Changes
Revised Figures Revisions
DEIR Figures
Figure 3-2 Proposed Planning and
Growth Areas
The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis presents a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure has been updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
Figure 5.2-2 Designated Farmland in the
Planning Area
This figure needed to be revised as it presents information of the original planning and growth areas. The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure has been updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
Figure 5.7-3 Landslide Susceptibility
Areas in Redding
This figure needed to be revised as it presents information of the original planning and growth areas. The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure has been updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
Figure 5.9-1 Fire Hazards Zones within
the City of Redding
This figure needed to be revised as it presents information of the original planning and growth areas. The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure was updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
Figure 5.10-3 Flood Zones Map This figure needed to be revised as it presents information of the original planning and growth areas. The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure has been updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
Figure 5.18-3 Residential Uses in Fire
Hazard Severity Zones
This figure needed to be revised as it presents information of the original planning and growth areas. The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative. This figure has been updated to reflect the new revised growth and planning areas and is presented within the revised DEIR in Appendix A.
General Plan Figures
CDD-1 Planning Growth Areas The revised figure shows a smaller planning area boundary while the DEIR analysis a larger planning area boundary; making the DEIR conservative.
CDD-3 Primary River and Creek
Corridors
The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
NR-1 River and Creek Corridor Buffer
Widths
The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
NR-2 Open Space The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
NR-3 Sensitive Natural Communities in
the Planning Area
The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The DEIR relies on figures provided by ECORP Consulting regarding sensitive natural communities and other biological resources (See Appendix 5.4-1 in the DEIR). The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
NR-4 Sacramento River Corridor,
Streams, and Stream Segments
The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
NR-5 Prime Farmland The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The DEIR includes Figure 5.2-1, Designated Farmland within the City of Redding, which was curated using the California Department of Conservation maps. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
R-1 Existing and Future Parks The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
Packet Pg. 821
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
February 2024 Page 189
Revised Figures Revisions
R-5 Primary River and Creek Corridors The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
PS-1 Ground Shaking Potential The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR
PS-2 Liquefaction Potential The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
PS-3 100-Year Floodplain The DEIR did not originally used this figure. The DEIR shows Figure 5.10-3, Flood Zone Map, which includes FEMA base flood maps as well as City-wide Storm Drain Master Plan provided by Montgomery-Watson Engineers dated October 1993. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
PS-4 Very High Fire Severity Zone The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The DEIR includes Figure 5.18-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, which was curated using the Cal Fire maps. The revised figure does not present new information that was not already discussed in the DEIR.
PS-5 Flooding Evacuation Routes The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure would not change the analysis in the DEIR regarding evacuation routes.
PS-6 Wildfire Evacuation Routes The DEIR did not originally use this figure. The revised figure would not change the analysis in the DEIR regarding evacuation routes.
Packet Pg. 822
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 823
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Appendix
February 2024 A-1
Appendix A. Revised DEIR with General Plan
Policy and Figure Changes
Packet Pg. 824
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Appendix
A-2 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 825
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) SCH# 2022050300 February 2024
for the City of Redding
2023-2045 General Plan
CITY OF REDDING
GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Packet Pg. 826
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Packet Pg. 827
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Environmental Procedures ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 Project Summary ............................................................................................................ 1-5
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................................................. 1-9
1.6 Areas of Controversy ..................................................................................................... 1-9
1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation ........................................................................................ 1-9 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................ 2-1
2.2 Notice of Preparation ................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Scope of this DEIR .......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................... 2-5
2.5 Final EIR Certification ..................................................................................................... 2-5
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 References .................................................................................................................... 3-21 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Regional Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Local Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts .......................................................... 4-10
4.5 References .................................................................................................................... 4-13 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 5.1-1
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................... 5.2-1
5.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 5.4-1
5.5 Cultural and Tribal CUltural Resources ..................................................................... 5.5-1
5.6 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 5.6-1
5.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 5.7-1 Packet Pg. 828
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii FEBRUARY 2024
5.8 Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................................................... 5.8-1
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 5.9-1
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 5.10-1
5.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 5.11-1
5.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 5.12-1
5.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 5.13-1
5.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................... 5.15-1
5.16 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 5.16-1
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 5.17-1
5.18 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 5.18-1 OTHER CEQA ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project ....................................... 6-1
6.2 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented ...................................................... 6-3
6.4 Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project .................................................... 6-4
6.5 Environmental Justice Element .................................................................................... 6-5
6.6 The Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects .................. 6-6 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Alternatives Considered AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS ...................................................................................................... 7-4
7.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ....................................................... 7-6
7.4 NO PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE ................................................ 7-7
7.5 No Annexation ............................................................................................................. 7-13
7.6 INcreased INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 7-19
7.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................................... 7-25 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/ LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................... 8-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 2-1: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comments Appendix 3-1: Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Public Review Draft Appendix 3-2: Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Buildout Forecast Model Output Appendix 5.3-1: AQGHG Data
Appendix 5.4-1: Biological Resources Technical Memorandum Appendix 5.5-1: Cultural Resources Inventory Report
Appendix 5.13-1: Noise Appendix
Appendix 5.15-1: Service Provider Questionnaire
Packet Pg. 829
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Citywide Aerial ............................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-3 Existing Land Use Plan ................................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 3-1 Existing Planning and Growth Areas ............................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2 Proposed Planning and Growth Areas ....................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Opportunity Areas ......................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4 Focus Areas .................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-5 Circulation Plan ............................................................................................................ 3-15 Figure 4-1 Existing Zoning ................................................................................................................ 4-5 Figure 5.2-1 Designated Farmland within the City of Redding .................................................. 5.2-7 Figure 5.2-2 Designated Farmland in the Planning Area ............................................................ 5.2-8 Figure 5.4-1 CalVeg – Land Cover .............................................................................................. 5.4-13 Figure 5.4-2 California Aquatic Resources Inventory ................................................................ 5.4-17 Figure 5.4-3 Sensitive Natural Communities ................................................................................ 5.4-23 Figure 5.7-1 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Types ................................................. 5.7-7 Figure 5.7-2 Regional Fault Map .................................................................................................. 5.7-11 Figure 5.7-3 Landslide Susceptibility Areas in Redding .............................................................. 5.7-17 Figure 5.9-1 Fire Hazards Zones within City Limits, SOI, and Planning Area ............................. 5.9-17 Figure 5.9-2 Public Airports in the City of Redding ..................................................................... 5.9-18 Figure 5.10-1 Lower Sacramento Watershed and Clear Creek-Sacramento River Subbasin ................................................................................................................... 5.10-13 Figure 5.10-2 Redding Groundwater Basin and Subbasins ...................................................... 5.10-14 Figure 5.10-3 Flood Zones Map .................................................................................................... 5.10-17 Figure 5.12-1 Locally Designated Mineral Resources in Redding .............................................. 5.12-5 Figure 5.13-1 Approximate Noise Monitoring Locations ............................................................. 5.13-9 Figure 5.13-2 Redding Regional Airport Noise Contours ........................................................... 5.13-17 Figure 5.13-3 Benton Airpark Noise Contours ............................................................................. 5.13-19 Figure 5.15-1 Fire Stations in the Vicinity of Redding ................................................................... 5.15-9 Figure 5.15-2 Elementary Schools and School Districts in Redding .......................................... 5.15-33 Figure 5.15-3 High Schools and Schools Districts in Redding .................................................... 5.15-37 Figure 5.15-4a Parks and Recreation Facilities in Redding .......................................................... 5.15-55 Figure 5.15-4b Parks and Recreation Facilities in Redding .......................................................... 5.15-56 Figure 5.15-4c Parks and Recreation Facilities in Redding .......................................................... 5.15-57 Figure 5.15-4d Parks and Recreation Facilities in Redding .......................................................... 5.15-58 Figure 5.16-1 Redding Circulation System .................................................................................. 5.16-21 Figure 5.16-2 Bicycle Network in Redding .................................................................................. 5.16-22 Figure 5.16-3 Pedestrian Facilities in Redding ............................................................................. 5.16-23 Figure 5.16-4 Redding Area Bus Authority Routes, Stops, and Service Area .......................... 5.16-24 Figure 5.17-1 City of Redding Wastewater Treatment and Collection ..................................... 5.17-7 Figure 5.17-2 Water Pipes .............................................................................................................. 5.17-21 Figure 5.17-3 Stormwater Pipes .................................................................................................... 5.17-37 Figure 5.18-1 Wildland Urban Interface Areas ........................................................................... 5.18-17 Figure 5.18-2 Fire Hazard Severity Zones ..................................................................................... 5.18-18 Figure 5.18-3 Residential Uses in Fire Hazard Severity Zones ..................................................... 5.18-19 Packet Pg. 830
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv FEBRUARY 2024
Figure 5.18-4 CPUC Fire Threat Levels .......................................................................................... 5.18-20 Figure 5.18-5 Fire Perimeters Through 2021 Near Redding ........................................................ 5.18-23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance after Mitigation ...................................................................................... 1-10 Table 2-1 Notice of Preparation Comments ............................................................................... 2-2 Table 3-1 Planning Boundaries ...................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast ......................................................... 3-18 Table 4-1 Summary of Existing Land Uses ..................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-2 Land Use Designations in the City under Current General Plan .............................. 4-8 Table 5.2-1 Farmland Acreage in Redding (Acres) .................................................................... 5.2-5 Table 5.2-2 Forestland Acreage in Redding SOI ......................................................................... 5.2-6 Table 5.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary .......................................................... 5.3-2 Table 5.3-2 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses ............................... 5.3-6 Table 5.3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................................. 5.3-8 Table 5.3-4 Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants of Concern .............................. 5.3-13 Table 5.3-5 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for Shasta County ....................................................................................................................... 5.3-13 Table 5.3-6 Recommended Standard Mitigation Measures for All Projects .......................... 5.3-18 Table 5.3-7 Recommended BAMMs for Residential Projects .................................................. 5.3-19 Table 5.3-8 Recommended BAMMs for Commercial/Industrial Projects............................... 5.3-20 Table 5.3-9 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ..................................................................... 5.3-21 Table 5.3-10 Comparison of NSVPA and 2023-2045 General Plan Ozone Precursor Emissions – Areawide and Mobile Sources ............................................................ 5.3-32 Table 5.3-11 Proposed Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast .................................. 5.3-40 Table 5.4-1 CalVeg Land Cover Types and acreage within Redding Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................... 5.4-12 Table 5.6-1 Electricity Consumption in Redding 2019-2021 ..................................................... 5.6-10 Table 5.6-2 Natural Gas Consumption in Redding 2019-2021 ................................................ 5.6-12 Table 5.6-3 Year 2045 Forecast Electricity Consumption ......................................................... 5.6-25 Table 5.6-4 Year 2045 Forecast Natural Gas and Propane Consumption ............................ 5.6-26 Table 5.7-1 List of NRCS soil types within the Planning Area ...................................................... 5.7-9 Table 5.7-2 Distances and Directions to Relevant Faults ......................................................... 5.7-10 Table 5.8-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 ............................................................................................................................... 5.8-3 Table 5.8-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risk to California ......................................................... 5.8-5 Table 5.8-3 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans .......................... 5.8-11 Table 5.8-4 Existing City of Redding GHG Emissions Inventory ................................................ 5.8-23 Table 5.8-5 City of Redding GHG Emissions Forecast ............................................................... 5.8-37 Table 5.8-6 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis .................................................................................. 5.8-43 Table 5.9-1 Geotracker Sites in the City of Redding ................................................................. 5.9-14 Table 5.9-2 Envirostor Sites in the City of Redding .................................................................... 5.9-15 Table 5.10-1 Construction BMPs .................................................................................................... 5.10-9 Packet Pg. 831
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS v
Table 5.13-1 FTA Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance .................................. 5.13-2 Table 5.13-2 FTA Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage ............................. 5.13-3 Table 5.13-3 Requirements for an Acoustical Analysis ............................................................... 5.13-5 Table 5.13-4 Redding Exterior Noise Standards ........................................................................... 5.13-6 Table 5.13-5 Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) ................................................ 5.13-11 Table 5.13-6 Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) ................................................ 5.13-15 Table 5.13-7 Existing Railroad Noise Levels ................................................................................ 5.13-21 Table 5.13-8 Construction equipment Noise Emission Levels .................................................. 5.13-26 Table 5.13-9 Traffic Noise Increases in the Planning Area ....................................................... 5.13-30 Table 5.13-10 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ...................................................... 5.13-37 Table 5.14-1 Population Trends in the City of Redding and Shasta County 2012 - 2023 ....... 5.14-8 Table 5.14-2 Housing UNIT Growth Trends in the City of Redding and Shasta County .......... 5.14-8 Table 5.14-3 City Of Redding 2018–2028 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ..................... 5.14-9 Table 5.14-4 City of Redding and Shasta County Employment Trends ................................... 5.14-9 Table 5.14-5 City of Redding; industry by Occupation (2012 and 2020) ............................... 5.14-10 Table 5.15-1 Redding Fire Stations ................................................................................................ 5.15-7 Table 5.15-2 Redding Fire Facilities Impact Fees ...................................................................... 5.15-12 Table 5.15-3 Schools in Redding ................................................................................................. 5.15-35 Table 5.15-4 Redding Schools Enrollment .................................................................................. 5.15-39 Table 5.15-5 Student Population Growth in Redding ............................................................... 5.15-42 Table 5.15-6 Redding Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fees ....................................... 5.15-54 Table 5.16-1 Redding Transportation Impact Fees ................................................................... 5.16-12 Table 5.16-2 Average Daily Traffic in Redding .......................................................................... 5.16-14 Table 5.16-3 Redding 2020 and 2045 VMT Summary ............................................................... 5.16-38 Table 5.17-1 City of Redding Projected Water Supply and Demand .................................... 5.17-23 Table 5.17-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (Redding Water Utility) ........................... 5.17-24 Table 5.17-3 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand (Redding Water Utility) ...................... 5.17-24 Table 5.17-4 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (Bella Vista Water District) ..................... 5.17-25 Table 5.17-5 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand (Bella Vista Water District) ................ 5.17-25 Table 5.18-1 Recent Wildfire History Near Redding And Its Soi ............................................... 5.18-25 Table 7-1 Proposed Project v. Increased Intensity Scenario ................................................... 7-19 Table 7-2 Alternatives Impact Comparison ............................................................................... 7-25 Table 7-3 Primary Objectives Alternative Comparison ............................................................ 7-26
Packet Pg. 832
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi FEBRUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 833
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) PLACEWORKS 1-1
Executive Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the proposed Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Update, herein referred to as the “proposed project.” This executive summary also provides conclusions of the analyses contained in Sections 5.1 through 5.18 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project, and issues to be resolved. For a complete description of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 3, Project Description. For a discussion of alternatives to the proposed project, see Chapter 7, Alternatives.
This Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) to determine if the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. Information for this Draft EIR was obtained through on-site field observations; discussions with public service agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation).
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Redding’s CEQA procedures. The City of Redding, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgement, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Data for this EIR derive from on -site field observations ; discussions with affected agencies ; analysis of adopted plans and policies ; review of available studies, reports, data , and similar literature ; and specialized environmental assessments (aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and Packet Pg. 834
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-2 FEB RUARY 202 4
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
The following objectives for the 2023-2045 General Plan Update will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
▪ Advance the City’s vision for a resilient, equitable, and healthy community with high -quality development urban centers and corridors.
▪ Redevelop existing commercial centers and arterial street corridors to provide a larger range of neighborhood-serving services, and/or additional residential uses. ▪ Strive to ensure that all new development connects to existing paths, trails, and roadways, where reasonable.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
An EIR is one of various decision -making tools used by the City to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the Cit y must consider the information in the EIR ; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines ; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency ; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives ; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.
1.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Redding’s Planning Area and Sphere of Influence are in south -central Shasta County. Adjacent to the north is the City of Shasta Lake. Figure 1-1, Regional Location and Figure 1-2, Citywide Aerial show the City’s location and its regional context. The City of Anderson is located approximately 10 miles south of Redding. Redding is principally bordered by unincorporated Shasta County lands. Interstate and regional access to the city is provided by Interstate 5 (I -5), which runs in a general north -south direction and bisects the city. State Route 299, an east/west facility, also bisects the city. State Route 44 begins in Redding and runs east toward Lassen Volcanic National Park.
Packet Pg. 835
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF REDDING
REDDING GENERAL PLAN
0 1 2 30.5
Miles
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
cnty24k09_1_line
Redding City Limit
Redding_SOI_2022
Source: GHD and Placeworks, 2022
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcMap, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021 Figure 1-1
Regional Location
0 Scale (Miles)
3 PLACEWORKS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Redding SOI
Redding City Limit
44 CALIFORNIA
273
CALIFORNIA
273
CALIFORNIA
299
CALIFORNIA
5 299
CALIFORNIA
299
CALIFORNIA
5 5
County Boundary
County of TehamaCounty of Tehama
County of ShastaCounty of Shasta
County of County of
TrinityTrinity
WhisketownWhisketown
LakeLake
ShastaShasta
LakeLake
ShastaShasta
LakeLake
Packet Pg. 836
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF REDDING
REDDING GENERAL PLAN
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Figure 1-2
Citywide Aerial
Redding City Limit
Redding_SOI_2022
Source: GHD and Placeworks, 2022
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcMap, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021 Figure 1-2
Citywide Aerial
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Redding SOI
Redding City Limit
44 CALIFORNIA
273
CALIFORNIA
273
CALIFORNIA
299
CALIFORNIA
299
CALIFORNIA
5 5
299
CALIFORNIA
299
CALIFORNIA
273
CALIFORNIA
5 5
44 CALIFORNIA
Pine Grove AvePine Grove Ave
Shasta Dam BlvdShasta Dam Blvd
Lake BlvdLake Blvd
Bear Mountain RdBear Mountain Rd
Oasis RdOasis Rd
Keswick Dam RdKeswick Dam Rd
Quartz Hill RdQuartz Hill Rd
Placer StPlacer St
Buenaventura BlvdBuenaventura Blvd
Shasta Shasta Vista DrVista Dr
Victor AveVictor Ave
Hartnell AveHartnell Ave
Boyle RdBoyle Rd
Old Alturas RdOld Alturas Rd
Old Alturas RdOld Alturas Rd
Old Oregon TrlOld Oregon Trl
Old 44 RdOld 44 Rd
Alta Mesa DrAlta Mesa Dr
Airport RdAirport Rd
Chum Crk RdChum Crk Rd
Rancho RdRancho Rd
S Bonnyview RdS Bonnyview Rd
Meadow View DrMeadow View Dr
Dersch RdDersch Rd
Placer StPlacer St
Lower Springs RdLower Springs Rd
Branstetter LnBranstetter Ln
Texas Springs Texas Springs
RdRd
Clear Creek RdClear Creek Rd
Canyon RdCanyon Rd
Riverside AveRiverside Ave
Cypress AveCypress Ave
Hawthorne AveHawthorne Ave
China Gulch DrChina Gulch Dr
Oak StOak St
Packet Pg. 837
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-5
1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
The 2023 -2045 General Plan Update is an update to the City of Redding’s adopted General Plan. The proposed project includes comprehensive updates to the required elements under the State Planning and Zoning Law, as well as other optional elements that the City has elected to include in its General Plan. In addition, an Environmental Justice Element is embedded throughout the updated General Plan’s goals and policies. Each element includes goals and policies that are based, in part, on creating an equitable, sustainable, and livable community of neighborhoods, and provides updates based on State and local law, and other considerations.
The proposed project will also involve decreasing the size of the City’s Planning Area to generally match boundaries of the City’s existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) while including Churn Creek Bottom. The proposed project would not alter the City’s existing land use plan with the exception of reducing the size of the Planning Area as shown in Figure 1-3, Existing Land Use Plan. .
1.4.1 EIR FORMAT
Chapter 1. Executive Summary: Summarizes the background and description of the project, the format of this EIR, project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, areas of controversy, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project.
Chapter 2. Introduction: Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.
Chapter 3. Project Description: A detailed description of the project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this EIR.
Chapter 4. Environmental Setting: A description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation was published, from local and regional perspectives. These provide the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency determines the significance of the project’s environmental impacts.
Chapter 5. Environmental Analysis: Each environmental topic is analyzed in a separate section that discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigation measures for the project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential cumulative impacts of the project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area.
Packet Pg. 838
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-6 FEB RUARY 202 4
Chapter 6. Unavoidable Impacts, Irreversible Changes, and Growth -Inducing Impacts: Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts and significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Describes the ways in which the project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts.
Chapter 7. Alternatives to the Project: Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the project. Alternatives include the No Project Alternative.
Chapter 8. Organizations Consulted and Qualifications of Preparers: Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR, as well as the people who prepared this EIR for the project.
Appendices: The appendices for this document comprise the following supporting documents and can be found online at: https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/development-services/planning/general- plan-and-development-guidelines and:
▪ Appendix 2-1: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comments ▪ Appendix 3-1: Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Public Review Draft ▪ Appendix 3-2: Redding 2023-2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast Model ▪ Appendix 5.3-1: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data ▪ Appendix 5.4 -1: Biological Resources Technical Memorandum for the City of Redding General Plan Update
▪ Appendix 5.5-1: Cultural Resources Inventory Report
▪ Appendix 5.13-1: Noise Data
▪ Appendix 5.15-1: Service Providers Questionnaires
Packet Pg. 839
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcGISPro 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021, and 2022.
Figure 1-3
Existing Land Use Plan
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Boyle RdBoyle Rd
Old 44 RdOld 44 Rd
Packet Pg. 840
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-8 FEB RUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 841
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-9
1.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a “no project” alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). CEQA Guidelines also require that the environmentally superior alternative be designated. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must designate the next most environmentally superior alternative.
▪ No Project/Existing General Plan
▪ No Annexation
▪ Increased Intensity
1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Section 15123(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including whether or how to mitigate potentially significant impacts and the choice among alternatives. With regard to the proposed project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Redding , as lead agency, related to:
▪ Whether this EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. ▪ Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
▪ Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. ▪ Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. ▪ Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed project besides the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
▪ Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION
MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Table 1-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this Draft EIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant , and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented.
Packet Pg. 842
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-10 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
5.1 Aesthetics
AES-1: The proposed project would not substantially alter or damage scenic vistas or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings nor conflict with applicable zoning and other regulation governing scenic quality in non-urbanized areas.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant AES-3: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant AES-4: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less - than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban land use.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable AG-2: The proposed project would not require a zone change or general plan amendment and/or conflict with an existing Williamson contract nor would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for, timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
No Impact None Required. No Impact
AG-3: The proposed project would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable AG-4: The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Less than Significant None Required. Less than Significant AG-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to
agricultural and forestry resources.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable Packet Pg. 843
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-11
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
5.3 Air Quality
AQ-1: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan.
Potentially Significant AQ-1: The City shall ensure that discretionary development shall incorporate all applicable Standard Mitigation Measures (SMMs) contained in the General Plan Natural Resources
Element to reduce emissions to be less than the applicable thresholds. These SMMs include but are not limited to the most recent SCAQMD recommendations for construction.
AQ-2: Applicants of future discretionary development projects that would generate construction -related or operational - related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds, shall include, but are not limited to, Best Available Mitigation Measures (BAMMs) recommended by SCAQMD, to the extent
feasible and applicable to the project.
Significant and Unavoidable
AQ-2: Construction of the proposed project would generate regional and localized emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursor emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Potentially Significant Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2
Significant and Unavoidable
AQ-3: Operation of the proposed project would generate
regional and localized emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursor emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Potentially Significant Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 Significant and Unavoidable AQ-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant AQ-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to air quality.
Potentially Significant Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Significant and Unavoidable Packet Pg. 844
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-12 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
5.4 Biological Resources
BIO-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant BIO-3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant BIO-4: The proposed project could interfere with the
movement of a native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
No Impact None Required. No Impact
BIO-6: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable
5.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Potentially Significant Non-feasible Significant and Unavoidable CULT-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Potentially Significant None Required. Less than Significant Packet Pg. 845
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-13
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
CULT-3: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Less than Significant None Required. Less than Significant TCR-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Sections, 21074, 5020.1(k), or 5024.1.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant CULT-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural and tribal resources.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.6 Energy
ENE-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant ENE-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant ENE-3: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded energy facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant ENE-4: The proposed project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to energy Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.7 Geology and Soils
GEO-1: The project would not exacerbate hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant GEO-3: The project would not result in a significant impact related to development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 846
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-14 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
GEO-4: The project would not create substantial risks to life or property as a result of its location on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant GEO-5: The project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where soils would be incapable of adequately supporting the in cases where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant GEO-6: Project development would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.
Potentially Significant GEO-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed
areas mapped with “low -to-high” paleontological
sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the
grading would occur at depths that could encounter
highly sensitive sediments for paleontological
resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may
have sensitivity, construction activity shall be
monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The
paleontologist shall have the authority to halt
construction during ground -disturbing activities, as
outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-2.
GEO-2: In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, ground -disturbing activities shall halt within a 50 -foot radius of the find until its
significance can be determined by a qualified
paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by
qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate
analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility, in accordance with the standards of
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The repository
shall be identified, and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.
Less than Significant
GEO-7: The proposed project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to geology and soils.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 847
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-15
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
5.8 Greenhouse Gases
GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant GHG-3: Implementation of the proposed project would, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed schools.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment by being located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-5: The project would be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 848
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-16 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HAZ-8: The proposed project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less -than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HYD-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HYD-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HYD-4: The proposed project would not be in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 849
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-17
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
HYD-6: The proposed project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.11 Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not divide an established community.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant LU-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not
conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant LU-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less - than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.12 Mineral Resources
MIN-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant MIN-2: The proposed project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less -than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.13 Noise
NOI-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.
Potentially Significant NOI: Update the noise ordinance to include construction noise attenuation and plan requirements such as:
▪ Limiting construction times and days.
▪ Use of best-available noise control techniques
(e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design,
use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields
or shrouds), wherever feasible.
Significant and Unavoidable
Packet Pg. 850
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-18 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
▪ Limitations on the use of i mpact tools (e.g., jack
hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically
or electrically powered wherever possible.
Where the use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used along
with external noise jackets on the tools.
NOI-2: Buildout of the Planning Area would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable NOI-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the General Plan may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration.
Potentially Significant NOI-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135
feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry
buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster);
or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration
analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and
vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The
vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds
(e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle
velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry
buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete
and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this
threshold, alternative uses such as d rilling piles as
opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary,
construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
NOI-3: New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be Less than Significant
Packet Pg. 851
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-19
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise
evaluation consistent with Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies.
NOI-4: During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments
under the General Plan Update or other projects that
could generate substantial vibration levels near
sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and
vibration impacts related to the operations of that
individual development. This noise and vibration
analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and
experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and
precedents
NOI-4: The proximity of the future development in the Planning Area to an airport or airstrip would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport -related noise.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.14 Population and Housing
PH-1: Implementation of the proposed project would directly result in population growth in the project area.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PH-2: Project implementation would not result in displacing a substantial number of people and/or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PH-3: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less - than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.15 Public Services, Parks, and Recreation
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection and emergency medical facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 852
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-20 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not , in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative fire protection services impact.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-3: The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not , in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative police protection services impact.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-5: The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-6: Implementation of the proposed project would not , in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative school services impact.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-7: The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant PS-8: The project would not in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative library impacts in the area.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant REC-1: The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant REC-2: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 853
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-21
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
REC-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative parks and recreation impacts in the area.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.16 Transportation
TRANS-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Less than Significant Less Than Significant
TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed project may
generate VMT levels inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable TRANS-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant TRANS-4: The project would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to transportation.
Less than
SignificantPotentially
Significant
None RequiredNon-Feasible Less than SignificantSignificant and Unavoidable
5.17 Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1: Sewer and wastewater treatment systems have
adequate capacity to meet project requirements , and would not result in the need for new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-3: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant Packet Pg. 854
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-22 FEB RUARY 202 4
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to water supply.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-5: Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the proposed project.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to stormwater facilities.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-7: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project-generated solid waste.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-8: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed project would not, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a cumulative impact with respect to solid waste facilities.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant
5.18 Wildfire
WILD-1: Development under the 2023 -2045 General Plan
Update could substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Potentially Significant WILD-1: Project applicants proposing development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone shall prepare a
Traffic Control Plan to ensure that construction
equipment or activities do not block roadways
during the construction period. The Traffic Control
Plan shall be submitted to the Redding Fire
Department and Police Department for review and
approval prior to approval of building permits
Less than Significant
WILD-2: Development under the 2023-2045 General Plan could exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire.
Potentially Significant Non-Feasible Significant and Unavoidable Packet Pg. 855
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 1-23
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Environmental Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation
WILD-3: The 2023 -2045 General Plan would not require the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure in areas that are undeveloped or vacant , which could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant WILD-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes
Less than Significant None Required Less than Significant WILD-5: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire.
Potentially Significant Implement Mitigation Measure WILD-1. Significant and Unavoidable
Packet Pg. 856
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1-24 FEB RUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank
Packet Pg. 857
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final PLACEWORKS 2-1
Introduction
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects. This draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental impact report (EIR) is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (CEQA § 21067). The City of Redding has the principal responsibility for approval of the City of Redding General Plan Update project.
For this reason, the City of Redding is the CEQA lead agency for this project.
The intent of the DEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Redding General Plan Update to allow the City of Redding to make an informed decision regarding approval of the projects. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.3.4, Intended Uses of the EIR.
This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:
▪ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.)
▪ State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.)
The overall purpose of this DEIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the proposed City of Redding General Plan Update project. This DEIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.
Packet Pg. 858
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
2-2 FEBRUARY 2024
2.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Redding determined that an EIR would be required for this project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 1, 2022 (see Appendix 2-1). Comments received during the NOP comment period, from May 13, 2022, to June 17, 2022, are in Appendix 2-1. Table 2-1, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, summarizes the comments received during the public comment period. The NOP solicited comments from identified responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR.
TABLE 2-1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION COMMENTS
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
Section of EIR
Comment is
Addressed
Agency
Native American
Heritage Commission
5/20/2022 ▪ The NAHC explains Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) which both have tribal consultation
requirements.
▪ The NAHC recommends consultation with California
Native American tribes that are traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human
remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.
▪ AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of
preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a
mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015.
▪ SB 18 applies to all California tribes and local
governments that adopt or amend general plans or
specific plans or create open space designations.
▪ NAHC recommends contacting the appropriate regional
California Historical Research Information System
(CHRIS) Center for an archaeological records search.
▪ NAHC recommends if an archaeological inventory survey is required then prepare a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search
and field study.
▪ NAHC recommends contacting the NAHC for a Sacred
Lands File search and a Native American Consultation
List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site.
Section 5.17, Tribal
Cultural Resources
Section 5.5,
Cultural Resources
Packet Pg. 859
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
Section of EIR
Comment is
Addressed
California Highway
Patrol (CHP) Redding
Area
6/10/2022 ▪ The CHP states the proposed project would likely increase demand of public safety resources specifically increase vehicle traffic on State Route 299, SR -44, SR - 273, Interstate 5 , and unincorporated county roads
within Shasta County.
▪ States the project could have a negative impact on CHP Redding Area operations due to the increased vehicle
and pedestrian traffic, which will require additional
traffic safety control measures to mitigate the potential impact.
▪ The CHP lists potential impact to its operations such as increased traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
increased heavy truck traffic, evaluate and revise school bus routing, additional enforcement demands, a
reduction of CHP jurisdiction on local roads, and require collaboration between CHP Redding Communication
Center Operations (RCC) and the Shasta Area Safety
Communications Agency (ShasCom).
Chapter 3, Project
Description
Section 5.14, Public
Services
Section 5.16,
Transportation
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
6/17/2022 ▪ Recommends conducting a complete assessment on the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area. ▪ Suggests disclosing previous survey that are no less than two year old and conducting during blooming time for
plants and wildlife.
▪ Recommends conducting surveys with a qualified
botanist, use of CNDDB for sensitive species and habitat, use of USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
▪ Recommends including other electronic databases for
biological search of the area such as the California Native Plan Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
▪ Recommends including a complete assessment of rare,
threatened, and endangered invertebrate, fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species in the DEIR.
▪ States Species of Special Concern (SSC) and Fully
Protected animals during the environmental review
process.
▪ Recommends a complete assessment of rare plants and
natural communities following the Departments March
2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plan Populations and Natural
Communities.
▪ Recommends including a detailed ve getation map and
surveys with methods, dates, results, and should list all plant and animal species (with scientific names).
▪ States the DEIR should have a through discussion of
direct, indirect, cumulative impacts, mitigation
measures, clear thresholds of significance, present
environmental conditions at local and regional level.
▪ States the DEIR should include alternatives aimed to
avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive biological
resources.
Section 5.4,
Biological
Resources
Packet Pg. 860
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
2-4 FEBRUARY 2024
Agency/Organization/
Individual Date Summary of Comments
Section of EIR
Comment is
Addressed
▪ Asks to include fuel modification impacts on vegetation in the biological resources section of the DEIR.
▪ States the DEIR must state whether the Project could
result in any amount of incidental take of any CESA-listed species and encourages early consultation for incidental take permitting.
▪ States the DEIR should demonstrate that the Project will not result in a net loss of wetland habitat values or
acreage and attach all wetland delineations.
Bella Vista Water
District
6/28/2022 ▪ States that while the scoping meeting notice indicates that future urban growth will occur in areas where
services exist or can be expanded, it does not address
water supply.
Section 5.17,
Utilities and Service
Systems
Scoping Meeting
Michele Goedert
Planning Commissioner
5/24/2022 ▪ Asked whether tree protection and management would be part of the General Plan Update.
Section 5.1
Aesthetics, and 5.4
Biology
Aaron Hatch Planning
Commissioner
5/24/2022 ▪ Asked whether the focus areas could be changed or modified.
Section 3.0 Project
Description
Cameron Middleton 5/24/2022 ▪ Asked how the focus areas were derived. Section 3.0 Project Description
The City of Redding Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting, on May 24, 2022, to receive input from the community on the proposed scope of the EIR. The Planning Commissioners asked questions regarding the project focus areas and whether the General Plan would address trees. There were no questions from the public at the meeting. Appendix 2-1 of this Draft EIR, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP .
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS DEIR
This DEIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as for a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual than Project EIRs, with a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures with a focus on defining subsequent actions that will be needed before projects can move forward. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of a ctions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the lead agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.
Agencies prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically; logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program; or individual activitie s carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.
Packet Pg. 861
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-5
Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document is necessary. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities may be within the Program EIR’s scope, and additional environmental documents may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives from the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects outside the scope of the Program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. Even in this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first- tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[h]) encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages that a Program EIR can:
▪ Provide a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR;
▪ Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; ▪ Avoid continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues; ▪ Consider broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them;
▪ Reduce paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).
For a complete listing of environmental topics covered in this Draft EIR, see Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis.
2.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference in this DEIR, consistent with Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and are available for review at the City of Redding. ▪ Public Review Draft General Plan
▪ 2020-2028 Housing Element
▪ Redding Municipal Code
2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION
Upon completion of the 45 -day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final EIR will be prepared that incorporates all of the comments received, responses to comments raising environmental issues, and any changes to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on EIR certification Packet Pg. 862
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
2-6 FEBRUARY 2024
and to the City Council for potential certification as the environmental document for the proposed project.
Public input is encouraged at all public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. All responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIR by agencies will be provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Draft EIR.
2.5.1 FINDINGS
The Project is considered a legislative action and the final decision will be made by the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The City Council will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the environmental impacts as presented in the Final EIR.1 The findings will be based in large part on the information in this Draft EIR, but may also include other supporting information in the public record for the Project, such as public testimony, staff reports, applicant submittals, letters to the City, etc.
The City Council will require the mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIR to be incorporated into the General Plan as development policies and may establish other/additional policies that help reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level, and require other feasible mitigation measures that arise out of the public review and comment process. However, environmental impacts that can not be mitigated to a level considered less than significant are considered significant unavoidable impac ts. For instance, the City Council may find that the mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement or that no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for a given significant impact. In such cases, the City Council may nonetheless determine that the proposed project is necessary or desirable due to specific overriding considerations, including economic factors, and may approve the proposed project despite an unavoidable, significant impact. This information will be included in the findings for the proposed project. This is termed a “statement of overriding considerations”.
The findings will accompany staff materials to the Planning Commission and Council to consider this EIR and the proposed project. The Final EIR will need to be certified as complete by the City prior to any decision to approve the proposed project. The proposed project can be denied if the EIR is not certified.
1 CEQA Section 15091.
Packet Pg. 863
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 2-7
2.5.2 CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
After the City Council certifies the Final EIR, it may consider the proposed project itself, which it may approve as presented in this EIR, approve in part, approve with conditions, or deny. The certification of this EIR does not approve any component of the proposed project. The approval of the 2023-2045 General Plan Update may occur separately from the certification of the EIR, if at all.
2.5.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) must be adopted if the proposed project is approved.2 This ensures that the mitigation measures required by the EIR , as well as any project design features that are essential to reducing an environmental impact, are carried through with implementation of the Project. Although the MMRP is not required to be part of the EIR, the information used to create it will be included in the EIR , and the MMRP will be an attachment to the staff report sent to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of the proposed project.
2 CEQA Section 15091(d).
Packet Pg. 864
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
INTRODUCTION
2-8 FEBRUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 865
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) PLACEWORKS 3-1
3. Project Description
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Redding’s Planning Area and Sphere of Influence are in south-central Shasta County. Adjacent to the north is the City of Shasta Lake. The City of Anderson is located approximately 10 miles south of Redding.
Redding is principally bordered by unincorporated Shasta County lands. Interstate and regional access to the city is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5), which runs in a general north -south direction and bisects the city.
State Route 299, an east/west facility, also bisects the city. State Route 44 begins in Redding and runs east toward Lassen Volcanic National Park. Rail freight access is p rovided by the Union Pacific Railroad; Amtrak provides daily passenger service north and south of Redding. Commercial air service is available at the Redding Municipal Airport. Figure 3-1, Regional Location, shows the General Plan area in its regional context.
3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives for the City of Redding General Plan Update will aid decision makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts:
▪ Advance the City’s vision for a resilient, equitable, and healthy community with high -quality development within its urban centers and corridors.
▪ Maintain the existing land use classifications of the existing General Plan Diagram while addressing the use of development incentives to spur new infill development/redevelopment consistent with the existing land use classification.
▪ Encourage a more compact urban form by reducing the Planning Area to a more realistic growth boundary.
▪ Establish thresholds and maintain roadway and intersection levels of service for the public’s health and convenience while striving to minimize increases in vehicle miles travelled from new development ▪ Provide park and recreation opportunities throughout the community, including those areas where facilities and services are not available.
▪ Work with appropriate agencies and organizations to increase resident’s access to healthcare, healthy food, transportation options, public services, housing, and healthy neighborhoods.
Packet Pg. 866
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 FEBRUARY 202 4
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT
The 2023 -2045 General Plan Update (proposed project) is an update to the City of Redding’s adopted General Plan. The General Plan is a state-required legal document that provides guidance to decisionmakers regarding the allocation of resources and determin ing the future physical form and character of development in the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). It is the official statement of the city regarding the extent and types of development needed to achieve the community’s physical, economic, social, an d environmental goals.
The proposed project includes comprehensive updates to the required elements under the State Planning and Zoning Law, as well as other optional elements that the City has elected to include in its General Plan.
Note that the Housing Element is not being updated as it is certified until 2028 from the state Department of Housing and Community Development. In addition, a new Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element would be adopted to address the requirements of SB 1000 - Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning. Environmental Justice topics would also be included in the policies of various other elements of the General Plan. Furthermore, under the proposed project, the City’s existing Air Quality Element would be eliminated and reincorporated into the proposed Natural Resources Element (see Section 3.3.3, Changes Under the Proposed Project).
Each element includes goals and policies that are based, in part, on creating an equitable, sustainable, and livable community of neighborhoods, and provides updates based on State and local law, and other considerations.
The 2023-2045 General Plan is updating the following elements:
▪ Community Development and Design
Element
▪ Transportation Element
▪ Natural Resources Element
▪ Public Safety Element
▪ Noise Element
▪ Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element
▪ Economic Development Element
▪ Public Facilities and Services Element
▪ Community Health, Wellness, and
Environmental Justice Element
The proposed project will identify long -term goals; provide a basis for decision -making; provide citizens a forum for input on their community’s direction; and inform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other cities and Shasta County of the expectations for development. Each proposed element would include goals and policies that are based, in part, on creating an equitable, sustainable, and livable community of neighborhoods, and provides updates based on State and local laws, and other considerations.
Packet Pg. 867
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-1
Additionally, the Development Code would need to be updated in the future as may be necessary to reflect the policy direction and development incentives addressed in the General Plan Update, although such updates are anticipated to be minimal in scope. However, it should be noted that the City’s existing land use plan would not be altered as part of the proposed project. The existing land use designations in the proposed Redding Planning Area (see Section 3.2.2, Proposed Project , Planning and Growth Areas), as shown in Figure 1-3, Existing Land Use Plan, would remain the same under the proposed project.
3.3.2 PLANNING BOUNDARIES AND GROWTH AREAS UNDER
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would provide the long -term planning blueprint for the improvements needed to house the City’s growing population and needed services and industry over through 2045. As noted below in Table 3 -2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon , the City could potentially grow from its current population, as modeled under the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) travel demand model, of approximately 106,816 in 2020 to a population of approximately 124,544 in 2045, based on projections prepared within the travel demand for the City of Redding. 1 The current City Limits contains adequate vacant sites zoned for housing, commercial services, and industrial uses to serve a much larger population.
The new growth is focused in areas of the city where services exist or can be expanded/extended to serve additional and more intensive development where appropriate.
3.3.2.1 PLANNING AND GROWTH AREAS
The “Planning Area” of a city is generally considered as the area directly addressed by the general plan. A city's Planning Area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). Consideration may also be given to areas outside the jurisdiction where the jurisdiction’s infrastructure and/or planning efforts may impact areas outside of the realm of future annexations.
Development under the 2023 -2045 General Plan would occur in a Planning Area footprint that is smaller (i.e., approximately 24 square mile reduction) than that of the 2000 -2020 General Plan. The 2023 -2045 General Plan Planning Area will largely match the boundary of the City’s current Sphere of Influence.
However, as with the current General Plan’s Planning Area, the Churn Creek Bottom is still included given that Redding surrounds the area on three sides, and it is influenced to some degree by City activities and planning efforts, such as the Redding Municipal Airport and access to the Stillwater Business Park.
The 2000-2020 General Plan also designated Primary and Secondary Growth Areas within the City’s SOI.
The Primary Growth Area consists of lands within the corporate boundaries of the City well as contiguous areas and "County islands" that are adjacent to al ready developed areas. The Secondary Growth Area encompasses the balance of the lands within the SOI that the City has determined are appropriate for future
1 Note that the existing population in 2020 provided here is based on the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency’s ShastaSIM travel demand model (explained further below), as shown in Table 3-2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast.
The existing population in the City of Redding, as provided by the Department of Finance’s (DOF) E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, is 92,465 in 2023.
Packet Pg. 868
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 FEBRUARY 202 4
urbanization and annexation to the City. Under the 2020 -2045 General Plan, the designated Primary and Secondary Growth Areas would eliminate certain areas within the SOI that have already been subdivided in the County which would prevent a more urban development style to be established, and those which are primarily floodplain lands (typically in the Stillwater basin). The adjustments would also designate Shasta College and areas to its north and west as a primary growth area to reflect exploratory discussi ons with property owners and Shasta College regarding potential future annexation and the potential availability of urban services. Other minor growth area adjustments that recognize steep topography areas along the City’s western boundary have also been proposed.
The existing and proposed Planning and Growth Areas are shown in Figure 3 -1, E xisting Planning and Growth Areas, and Figure 3-2, Proposed Planning and Growth Areas , respectively. A comparison between the land included in the existing vs. proposed planning boundaries, which include the Planning Area, SOI, City limits, and growth areas, is shown in Table 3-1, Planning Boundaries.
TABLE 3-1 PLANNING BOUNDARIES
Planning Boundaries
Acres
Existing Proposed
Difference between
Existing and Proposed
Planning Area 74,512 61,223 13,289
Sphere of Influence 55,135 49,427 -5,708
Current City Limits 39,040 39,040 --
Primary Growth Areas 6,288 6,835 -547
Secondary Growth Areas 7,419 4,185 3,234
Source: City of Redding 2022
As noted above, the General Plan Diagram (i.e., land use map), which is shown in Figure 1-3, would not be modified by the General Plan update. Existing land use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected.
Packet Pg. 869
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) §¨¦5
Airport Rd
Old O
regon Trl
Oa
sis Rd
Lak
e Blvd
Sha
sta V
iew Dr
Hill
top Dr
Hartnell Ave
Victor Ave
Old Alturas Rd
Clear Creek Rd
Knighton Rd
Bechelli Ln
Cany
on Rd
Ch
urn Creek Rd
Keswick
Dam
Rd
Rancho Rd
E Bonnyview Rd
N Market St
Buena
ventu
ra Blvd
S Bo
nny
view
Rd
E Cypress Ave
Court St
S Market St
Pla
cer
Rd
Canby Rd
Dersch Rd
Park
M
arina Dr
Hawley Rd
Churn Creek Rd
Twin
Vie
w Blvd
Eastside Rd
Alta Mesa Dr
Westside Rd
Branstetter Ln
Dana Dr
Tex
as Springs Rd
Colleg
e View Dr
Benton Dr
Beltline Rd
Mistletoe Ln
Girvan Rd
Airpark Dr Tarmac Rd
Ove
rhill Dr
Meadow View Dr
Radio Ln
Sacramento Dr
Eastside Rd
§¨¦5
Qu
artz
Hil
l Rd
Placer St
Hollow Ln
§¨¦5
Eureka Way
Churn Creek Rd
ÄÅ273
ÄÅ273
Old Oregon Trl
Swasey Dr
Lower Springs Rd
ÄÅ299
ÄÅ299
ÄÅ44
P:\GP2020-2040\ProProjects\GeneralPlanUpdatePresentation\GeneralPlanUpdatePresentation.aprx 012 0.5
Miles
I
Redding City Limit
Existing Planning Area Boundary
Existing Growth Area
Primary Growth Area
Secondary Growth Area
Figure 2
Existing Planning and Growth Areas
Print Date: May 3, 2022
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: City of Redding, 2022.
Figure 3-1
Existing Planning and Growth Areas
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pine Grove AvePine Grove Ave
Shasta Dam BlvdShasta Dam Blvd
Bear Mountain RdBear Mountain Rd
Iron Mountain RdIron Mountain Rd
Boyle RdBoyle Rd
Old Alturas RdOld Alturas Rd
Old 44 RdOld 44 Rd
Riverside AveRiverside Ave
Hawthorne AveHawthorne Ave
China Gulch DrChina Gulch Dr
Oak StOak St
Packet Pg. 870
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Packet Pg. 871
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-5
3.3.2.2 OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Additionally, there are areas to accommodate redevelopment of a number of existing commercial centers as well as redevelopment along arterial street corridors. Redevelopment of these centers and corridors may result in a larger range of neighborhood and community services and/or additional residential uses. These “Opportunity Areas” are generally depicted in Figure 3-3, Opportunity Areas and include Hartnell and Victor Avenues, Bechelli Lane, South Market Street. The proposed General Plan Update would inclu de several policies intended to incentivize private redevelopment in these areas, which may include, but are not limited to, affordable housing funds, installation of property street frontage improvements as part of the City’s Active Transportation Program (ATP), use of Development Impact Fees at appropriate locations, general street and utility maintenance activities, installation of planned sewer and water line capacity improvements, and reciprocal or joint-use parking allowances. Further development/redevelopment would be at the discretion of property owners and not required by the policies and implementation of the General Plan.
3.3.2.3 FOCUS AREAS
The existing General Plan identifies 10 Focus Areas where neighborhood-specific policies or guidelines are provided. Under the proposed project, the following Focus Areas would be eliminated:
▪ Stillwater Focus Area
▪ Clover Creek Focus Area
▪ Victor Avenue Focus Area
▪ Hilltop/Dana Drive Focus Area
Figure 3-4, Focus Areas, shows the Focus Areas that would remain under the proposed project as well as proposed new focus areas:
▪ Downtown Focus Area
▪ Riverfront Focus Area (formerly the Park Marina Area) ▪ North Market Street Focus Area
▪ Magnolia Neighborhood Focus Area
▪ Parkview Neighborhood Focus Area
▪ California-Trinity Focus Area
▪ Garden Tract Focus Area
▪ Redding Regional Airport Environs Focus Area
▪ Oasis Road Specific Plan Focus Area
As with the General Plan Diagram (see Figure 1-3), neither the Focus Areas or the Opportunity Areas contain mandatory land use changes.
Packet Pg. 872
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 FEBRUARY 202 4
3.3.3 CHANGES UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.3.3.1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN ELEMENT
The City of Redding Community Development and Design Element (referred to as a “Land Use Element” in the California Government Code), provides the foundation for all other elements in the General Plan. The key component of the Community Development and Design Element is the General Plan Diagram, which along with the policies and implementation strategies in the element, determine the location, intensity, design, and quality of new development and guide the preservation of natural resources that are key to Redding’s identity. While the proposed Community Development and Design Element does not propose any changes to the City’s current General Plan Diagram, this element does describe changes to the City’s planning boundaries including modifications to the Planning Area boundary to reflect the adopted Sphere of Influence more closely, as discussed in Section 3.3.2, Planning and Growth Areas Under the Proposed Project.
The proposed Community Development and Design Element also includes the following changes from the existing element:
▪ Additional policies calling for the additional identification and protection of the City’s historic resources and buildings.
▪ Additional policy guidance to incentivize infill development to accommodate future housing needs in a manner that complements, to the extent possible, existing neighborhoods. ▪ Additional policy guidance leading to commercial developments that are better designed both architecturally and for pedestrian access.
▪ Identification of several Opportunity Areas (see above) and policy guidance related to the potential revitalization of underdeveloped commercial centers.
3.3.3.2 COMMUNITY HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ELEMENT
The Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element is new element under the 2023- 2045 General Plan Update that is intended to address potential Environmental Justice concerns in the City per the direction of SB 1000 (Government Code section 63502(h)). This element includes goals and policies crafted to address improving environmental health, access to housing, health care, and healthy food, creating safe and cohesive neighborhoods, responding to extreme weather events, and providing access to parks, recreation, and open space.
The new Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element would also include the following components:
▪ Policies that seek direct working with Redding’s more vulnerable residents and provide meaningful opportunities to engage them in planning and similar community processes.
Packet Pg. 873
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Source: City of Redding, 2023.
Figure 3-3
Opportunity Areas
0 Scale (Miles)
0.5 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
PLACEWORKS
Packet Pg. 874
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 FEBRUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 875
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Figure 3-6
Focus Areas2
Source: City of Redding, 2024.
0 Scale (Miles)
P L A CE WO R K S
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Packet Pg. 876
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 FEBRUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 877
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-11
▪ Policies that provide guidance on working with community members to help mitigate or address impacts associated with extreme temperatures, wildfire smoke, and similar conditions. ▪ Policies that address the need to prioritize upgrades to municipal services and infrastructure, including parks and trees, to older neighborhoods as appropriate. ▪ Policies that direct the City to work more closely with local agencies to help provide better access to heathy food and medical services.
3.3.3.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The Economic Development Element includes goals and policies that recognize the growing scope of economic development by addressing broader areas such as workforce, quality of life and place, equity, and technology, in addition to the traditional economic development metrics like number of jobs created. The primary function of this element is to establish a framework that will guide consistent and equitable economic growth and direct the focus of policymaking to address the expanding scope of economic development. The proposed element contains various strategies to attract “primary industries”, cultivating an adaptable and well-trained workforce, and supporting expansion of the healthcare industry and digital economic opportunities are provided.
3.3.3.4 NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
The Natural Resources Element helps to guide the protection and preservation of natural resources in the Planning Area including the Sacramento River, creeks, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, and groundwater resources; a variety of vegetation types and commu nities; wildlife; archaeological, historical, cultural, and aesthetic resources; mineral resources; and agricultural lands. This element seeks to balance the need to accommodate growth with the need for conservation, protection, and enhancement of the area 's natural resources.
The proposed Natural Resources Element includes the following changes from the existing element:
▪ Additional policy guidance on the City’s native tree resources, including consideration of establishing an urban forestry program.
▪ Policies that better recognize and protect cultural resources and the importance of working more closely with local Wintu tribes.
▪ The current Air Quality Element would be eliminated and its provisions incorporated into the Natural Resources Element. This element also includes consideration of adopting a climate action and resiliency plan for the City.
Packet Pg. 878
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 FEBRUARY 202 4
3.3.3.5 NOISE ELEMENT
The Noise Element helps with planning the location of planned noise - sensitive land uses and considers noise exposure when placing facilities that generate significant volumes of noise. Topics addressed in the Noise Element include measurements of existing noise conditions; roadway, rail, and airport noise; transportation noise contours; vibration; and stationary noise sources.
The proposed Noise Element includes the following changes from the existing element:
▪ New measurements of ambient noise levels throughout the Planning Area ▪ New standards for maximum acceptable exterior noise levels from transportation sources that specify allowable noise levels based on land use type
▪ Updated transportation noise contours for current and future noise conditions ▪ New policy directing updates to Noise Ordinance for allowing increased noise levels in outdoor activity hubs including the Downtown Core and Civic Auditorium/Rodeo Grounds/Turtle Bay Exploration Park area
3.3.3.6 PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION ELEMENT
The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element meets the state’s requirements for Open Space Elements and includes goals and policies designed to address the primary recreation and park development issues in the Planning Area. The goals, policies, and exhibits contained in the Element serve as the framework for meeting the City's ongoing park and recreation needs. No major changes in policy direction are proposed under the proposed Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element. Policies have been updated as appropriate to reflect the most recent provisions of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan.
3.3.3.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICE ELEMENT
The Public Facilities and Services Element is intended to guide provision of public facilities and services in the Planning Area. It contains facility descriptions, service level standards, and goals and policies designed to support infill and smart growth strategies to assist the City Council, advisory bodies and the city management team with decisions related to staffing and the construction/improvement of public facilities.
The proposed element includes minor changes to the policies and primarily updates program descriptions and data for the existing conditions, as necessary.
3.3.3.8 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
The Public Safety Element is intended to identify potential hazards that must be considered when planning the location, type, and density of development throughout the Planning Area, and to the extent feasible, provide guidance to mitigate the various identified risks. Like the City’s existing Safety Element, the proposed Publi c Safety Element addresses seismic hazards, flood hazards, dam failure and inundation, Packet Pg. 879
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
urban and wildland fire hazards, crime prevention, airport-related hazards, emergency response, hazardous materials, critical facilities, evacuation routes, and extreme weather .
The proposed Public Safety Element includes the following changes from the existing element:
▪ Additional policy guidance addressing the potential for wildland fire damage and destruction. ▪ Additional policy guidance for maintaining public safety by considering expanding various programs including the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the Crisis Intervention Response Team (CIRT), and the park ranger and bike patrol programs.
3.3.3.9 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Transportation Element addresses the street and transportation network and the movement of people and goods within the City of Redding. It establishes a plan for the transportation system to serve all members of the community. The transportation system shapes community life by linking friends to friends, people to jobs, homes to shopping, businesses to supplies, and families to entertainment. As such, the Transportation Element provides goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide the prioritization of future investments and maintenance.
An important feature of all new development is that street improvements accommodate all modes of travel, i.e., Complete Streets. Where reasonable, all new development would connect to existing paths, trails, and roadways. Among the concepts for modifications shown in Figure 3 -7, Circulation Plan, to the City’s roadways are:
▪ Expanded use of roundabouts at appropriate locations. ▪ Reducing arterial street improvement width where analyses indicate that currently planned improvements are not warranted. Right-of-way widths will be retained in the event that reconfiguration of these streets to accommodate future traffic volumes is needed. ▪ Addressing long-term street maintenance needs.
▪ Ensuring adequate bicycle pedestrian, bus, and similar multimodal facilities can be accommodated. ▪ Construction of one or more of “diverging diamond” interchanges where appropriate and supported by Caltrans.
▪ Addressing micro-mobility options.
In addition to providing this additional guidance to continue the development of Complete Streets in Redding, the proposed Transportation Element would also include in the following updates:
▪ Prioritization of the development of low-stress walk and bikeways ▪ Level of Service (LOS) thresholds to address public safety and convenience concerns while implementing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) CEQA requirements
Packet Pg. 880
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 FEBRUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 881
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Source: GHD 2023
Figure 3-5
Circulation Plan
0 Scale (Miles)
2 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
PLACEWORKS
LEGEND
Packet Pg. 882
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-16 FEBRUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 883
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-17
3.3.4 FORECASTED GROWTH UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 3-2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast shows the projected growth within the City limits and SOI through the year 2045. This forecast incorporates the Approved/Pending projects and the potential multi-family residential growth in Opportunity Areas in addition to the land uses currently allowed under the General Plan. The Planning Horizon forecast was developed as part of the VMT analysis based on the methodology of SRTA’s ShastaSIM 1.2 Activity Based Travel Demand Model. The output of this model can be referenced in Appendix 3 -2, Redding 2023 -2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast Model. The travel model demand model was last updated in 2018 but has been adjusted to reflect actual year 2020 conditions based on development that had occurred in the City s ince the 2018 travel demand model was prepared.
Since these estimates and projections are based on the SRTA regional travel demand model, it should be noted that the estimates for the existing dwelling units, employment, students, and population in the City and SOI do not reflect the estimates of these factors from other authoritative sources including the Census Bureau and California Department of Finance. For example, the population of the City of Redding reported in the 2020 Census was 93,611 and similarly, the Department of Finance’s E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates reported a population of 93,836 for the City in 2020 (US Census 2020, DOF 2023). As shown in Table 3 -2, the estimated population of the City of Redding based on the ShastaSIM model’s dwelling unit output and the DOF’s avera ge persons per household in 2020 is 106,816, which is approximately 14 percent larger than the City’s population reported under the Census. For the purposes of this EIR, the use of the regional travel demand model’s growth projections to forecast the growth expected under the proposed project is intended to show consistency with the assumptions used to generate the VMT estimates discussed in Section 5.16, Transportation. This growth forecast is therefore conservative.
Furthermore, because there are many other factors that influence the density and timing of development (e.g., community growth rates, building construction costs, cost of installing utility infrastructure; cost of completing roadway improvements, regulatory controls, economic conditions, property owner decisions, and other market forces), it is unlikely that the full extent of the growth shown in Table 3 -2 will occur by 2045. These growth forecasts demonstrate one potential scenario of growth over the horiz on of this General Plan Update under the assumption that the City will continue to grow within its proposed Planning Area.
Packet Pg. 884
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-18 FEBRUARY 202 4
TABLE 3-2 2045 GENERAL PLAN PLANNING HORIZON FORECAST
2020 (Existing) 2045 (General Plan) Growth (2020-2045)
Redding
City SOI Total Redding
City SOI Total Redding
City SOI Total
Housing
Single-Family 30,326 3,372 33,698 35,543 3,722 39,265 5,217 350 5,567 Multi-Family
(2-4 units) 4,443 141 4,584 4,669 141 4,810 226 - 226
Multi-Family
(5+ units) 7,592 130 7,722 9,505 490 9,995 1,913 360 2,273 Mobile Home 1,961 972 2,933 1,961 972 2,933 - - -
Dwelling Units 44,322 4,615 48,937 51,678 5,325 57,003 7,356 710 8,066 Employment
Education 1,698 1,214 2,912 2,043 1,352 3,395 345 138 483 Food 3,554 52 3,606 3,738 146 3,884 184 94 278
Government 5,624 352 5,976 5,953 352 6,305 329 - 329
Industrial 4,903 1,155 6,058 7,380 1,427 8,807 2,477 272 2,749 Medical 7,764 62 7,826 8,585 122 8,707 821 60 881
Office 10,096 633 10,729 11,590 736 12,326 1,494 103 1,597 Retail 7,649 329 7,978 8,033 379 8,412 384 50 434
Service 8,015 816 8,831 9,807 819 10,626 1,792 3 1,795
Other 1,475 188 1,663 2,583 315 2,898 1,108 127 1,235
Employment 50,778 4,801 55,579 59,712 5,648 65,360 8,934 847 9,781 Students
Grade School 12,114 729 12,843 15,664 1,129 16,793 3,550 400 3,950 High School 7,273 - 7,273 7,573 - 7,573 300 - 300
University 1,728 14,830 16,558 1,728 16,230 17,958 - 1,400 1,400 School Enrollment 21,115 15,559 36,674 24,965 17,359 42,324 3,850 1,800 5,650 Population1
106,816 11,122 117,938 124,544 12,833 137,377 17,728 1,711 19,439 Source: GHD 2022 (Appendix 3-2)
1 Population generated by multiplying the Department of Finance’s 2020 E-5 Population Estimates for persons/household in Redding (2.41) by the total number of projected dwelling units
Packet Pg. 885
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-19
3.3.5 PROJECT PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would be adopted solely by the City of Redding. Future development would need to conform to applicable development and design standards and be consistent with the General Plan Update policies. Depending on the proposal, a future development project may be exempt fr om CEQA review because a CEQA exemption applies or the approval is ministerial, 2 or a project may require further environmental review and subsequent analysis in a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. Projects may be ministerial and require no discretionary action or may require review and approval by the Planning Division, the Board of Administrative Review, the Planning Commission, and/or City Council, and other agencies, as needed. Permits would be needed for the construction of all structures, to allow for certain uses or events within the General Plan Area, and to approve encroachments in the right-of-way.
Additionally, the following would be required to be adopted to implement the proposed project:
▪ Certify the EIR
▪ Adopt the General Plan
▪ Modify the Development Code to reflect the changes in the General Plan
3.3.6 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
This is a Program EIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This DEIR also addresses various actions by the City to adopt and implement the General Plan Update. This EIR serves as a Program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sec tion 15168. According to CEQA Guidelines 15168(b), use of a Program EIR can provide advantages, including:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action.
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis.
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations.
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
As a Program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effects of the proposed project. The analysis does not examine the effects of any potential specific projects that may occur during the planning horizon.
Further, the nature of general plan is such that some proposed policies are intended to be more qualitative, with specific details to be determined upon development of a specific project. No development or
2 Projects may be ministerial, which means they do not require any discretionary review.
Packet Pg. 886
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20 FEBRUARY 202 4
subdivision maps are being requested as a part of this project. Any impacts associated with subdivision or development that are not fully evaluated within the scope of this EIR may require further environmental analysis. However, the City envisions that this Program EIR may be used to eliminate or reduce the scope of future environmental review for individual projects that are consistent with the General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and other streamlining provisions authorized by CEQA.
It is the intent of this DEIR is to evaluate the environmental impact of the project, thereby enabling the City, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements.
Packet Pg. 887
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-21
3.4 REFERENCES
Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State 2020-2022.
Redding, City of. 2022, March 23. Modifying the General Plan Planning Area Boundary.
Packet Pg. 888
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22 FEBRUARY 202 4
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 889
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Setting
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides a “description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, ... from both a l ocal and a regional perspective” (Guidelines § 15125[a]), pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines The environmental setting provides the baseline physical conditions from which the lead agency will determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.
4.2 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
The City of Redding’s Planning Area is in southwestern Shasta County, California, and is bordered by the City of Shasta Lake to the north, unincorporated lands in Shasta County in all other directions . Interstate and regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 5 (I -5), which runs in a general north -south direction through the City. State Route 299 (SR -299) provides access to the City from the west and State Route 44 (SR-44) provides access from the east and merges with SR-299 within the City. State Route 299 also provides access to the City from the northeast of Shasta County. Figure1-1, Regional Location, and Figure 1-2, Citywide Aerial, show the General Plan Area in its regional and local contexts.
4.2.2 REGIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
SHASTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
The U.S. Department of Transportation has designated Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Shasta County and the cities of Anderson, Redding, and Shasta Lake. SRTA is a legally separate public agency with its own governing board of directors. The SRTA Board consists of three members of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, one member from each of the cities of Anderson, Redding, and Shasta Lake, and one member of the Redding Area Bus Authority (RA BA).
The agency represents a population of 178,592 across Shasta County.
Packet Pg. 890
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-2 FEBRUARY 2024
As required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 450.300, Subpart C, and California Government Code Section 65080 et seq., SRT A prepared the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region (RTP/SCS). The RTP is a comprehensive plan that addresses all modes of transportation used by people and for goods and freight movement (i.e., street s/roads, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, aviation, and rail) in the Shasta Region. The 2018 RTP incl udes an updated SCS as required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), which demonstrates how the region will meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB ). CARB established emission reduction targets for California’s eighteen metropolitan planning organization (MPO) regions for the year 2020 and 2035. Shasta County was assigned a 0% per capita change when compared to the 2005 baseline year, and the 2018 RTP/SCS reflects this target. SB 375 (2008) requires that local housing projects are consistent with the RTP/SCS (SRTA 2018).
SHASTA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND
NORTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY PLANNING AREA
Redding is in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin which is managed by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . The SCAQMD has the responsibility of enforcing federal and State air quality regulations in Shasta County. The SCAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs, and it regulates agricultural burning. All projects in Shasta County are subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The air districts for the counties of Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, and Yuba have established the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA). The NSVPA air districts were designated as non - attainment for the ozone CAAQS and have jointly prepared an air quality attainment plan to attain the ozone CAAQS standard by the earliest practicable date. The NSVPA air districts jointly prepared the original 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan and have since prepared triennial updates to the plan. Th e latest update is referred to as the 20 21 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan (20 21 Plan). The 20 21 Plan includes an assessment of progress towards achieving the control measure commitments in the previous plan, a summary of ozone data, emission reductions for measures committed to in the previous plan, updated control measure commitments, and updated growth rates.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION LEGISLATION
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05; Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006); Executive Order B-15-30 and Senate Bill (SB) 32; SB 375; and Executive Order B-5518 and SB 100. Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction goals for the State of California:
▪ 2000 levels by 2010
Packet Pg. 891
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PLACEWORKS 4-3
▪ 1990 levels by 2020
▪ 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
AB 32 was passed by the state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 established a legislative target for the year 2020 goal outlined in Executive Order S-03-05. CARB prepared its first Scoping Plan in 2008 outlining the state’s plan for achieving the 2020 targets of AB 32.
In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to connect passenger -vehicle GHG emissions reduction targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior . Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light -duty trucks and automobiles by aligning regional long -range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips.
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32, making the Executive Order B-15-30 goal for year 2030 of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels into a statewide -mandated legislative target. CARB issued an update to its Scoping Plan in 2017, which sets forth programs for meeting the SB 32 reduction target.
Executive Order B-55-18 sets a goal for the state to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. SB 100 would help the state reach the goal set by Executive Order B-55-18 by requiring that the state’s electricity suppliers have a source mix that consists of at least 60 percent renewable/zero carbon sources in 2030 and 100 renewable/zero carbon sources in 2045.
SENATE BILL 743
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law. SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. The legislature found that with the adoption of SB 375, the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and thereby contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by the California Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
SB 743 generally eliminates auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shal l promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code § 21099[b][1]).
Packet Pg. 892
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-4 FEBRUARY 2024
CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD –
SACRAMENTO RIVER & SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS
Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act, California’s water quality control law, the State Water Resources Control Board has ultimate control over water quality policy and allocation of state water resources. Through its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State Water Resources Control Board carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan. The City of Redding is in t he Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin (Region 5).
4.3 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.3.1 LOCATION AND LAND USE
In 2023, the City encompassed approximately 61 square miles or 39,040 acres and its SOI encompasses approximately 49,427 acres (Redding GIS 2021; Shasta LAFCO 2022). Figure 3-1, Existing Land Use Plan, shows the existing land uses in the City.
▪ Residential. Residential uses in the City range from large rural lots with a minimum of five acres in size to multiple-family projects that allow a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. ▪ Commercial and Industrial. This includes a range of nonresidential uses primarily oriented to commerce. This includes commercial, office, business park, and light industrial. ▪ Public Facility. These land uses are essential amenities that contribute to the quality of life in the community. Community amenities include educational facilities, religious organizations, and civic facilities.
▪ Mixed Use. A mix of uses grouped within a development (residential, office, commercial, retail, etc.).
▪ Open Space. Open space amenities including recreation and habitat conservation. This includes Redding’s "Greenway" designation for natural open space. The Greenway designation includes slopes in excess of 20 percent and the 100-year floodplain of the Sacramento River and its tributary creeks and streams.
▪ Airport. The includes activities which are typically associated with airports and airport-related uses.
4.3.2 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Figure 3-1, Existing Land Use Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description, shows the existing General Plan land use designations regulating development in the city. Figure 4-1, Existing Zoning, shows the zoning districts in the city.
Packet Pg. 893
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcGISPro, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021, and 2022.
Figure 4-1
Existing Zoning
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Boyle RdBoyle Rd
Old 44 RdOld 44 Rd
Packet Pg. 894
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-6 FEBRUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 895
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PLACEWORKS 4-7
4.3.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USES
Table 4-1, Summary of Existing Land Uses, shows the distribution of existing General Plan land uses within the Proposed Planning Area.
TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USES
Land Use Category Total
Residential
Residential — 1 Dwelling Unit per 5 Acres and Larger (5 a/u) 3,440 Residential — 1 Dwelling Unit per 1 to 5 Acres (1 to 5 a/u) 4,555 Residential — 1 to 2 Dwelling Units per Acre (1 to 2 u/a) 3,250 Residential — 2 to 3.5 Dwelling Units per Acre (2 to 3.5 u/a) 12,477 Residential — 3.5 to 6 Dwelling Units per Acre (3.5 to 6 u/a) 2,201 Residential — 6 to 10 Dwelling Units per Acre (6 to 10 u/a) 1,696 Residential — 10 to 20 Dwelling Units per Acre (10 to 20 u/a) 1,004 Residential — 20 to 30 Dwelling Units per Acre (20 to 30 u/a) 36 Commercial
Limited Office (LO) 137
General Office (GO) 497
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 67
Shopping Center (SC) 136
Regional Commercial (RC) 581
General Commercial (GC) 1,257
Mixed Use Core (MUC) 274
Heavy Commercial (HC) 1,051
Industrial
General Industry (GI) 2,821
Heavy Industry (HI) 1,830
Public Facilities/Airport
Airport Service (AS) 1,239
Airport Operations (AO) 121
Public Facilities or Institutional (PF-I; PF-I-S) 3,273 Recreation/Open Space
Recreation (REC) 51
Park (PK) 861
Park (Golf-Course) 161
Greenway (GWY) 15,707
Total1 58,723
Source: City of Redding GIS 2023
1 Total acreage of designated land in the proposed Planning Area is less than the total area within the proposed Planning Area boundary due to areas of the City including the state roads and the Sacramento River remaining as undesignated land.
Packet Pg. 896
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-8 FEBRUARY 2024
Table 4-2, Land Use Designations in the City under Current General Plan, shows the permitted uses under each current land use designation.
TABLE 4-2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY UNDER CURRENT GENERAL PLAN Land Use Designation Uses
Residential
Residential — 1 Dwelling Unit per 5 Acres and
Larger (5 a/u)
▪ Agricultural purposes
▪ Areas constrained by extreme topography.
▪ Outlying rural areas
Residential — 1 Dwelling Unit per 1 to 5 Acres
(1 to 5 a/u)
▪ Large rural lots
▪ Hillside areas
▪ Transition areas between agricultural and urban uses.
Residential — 1 to 2 Dwelling Units per Acre
(1 to 2 u/a)
▪ For single-family residences/subdivisions with large lots Residential — 2 to 3.5 Dwelling Units per Acre
(2 to 3.5 u/a)
▪ Subdivisions with lots generally larger than 8,000 square feet. ▪ Developments with open space and recreation areas.
Residential — 3.5 to 6 Dwelling Units per Acre
(3.5 to 6 u/a)
▪ Detached or attached single-family homes in lots generally larger than 5,000 square feet.
▪ Not appropriate for slope areas exceeding 8 percent.
Residential — 6 to 10 Dwelling Units per Acre
(6 to 10 u/a)
▪ Single-family attached or detached units, and/or townhouses. ▪ Multiple-family projects and mobile home parks near arterial or collector street systems.
Residential — 10 to 20 Dwelling Units per Acre
(10 to 20 u/a)
▪ Multiple-family projects ranging from townhouses to apartments, typically located on arterial or collector street(s).
Residential — 20 to 30 Dwelling Units per Acre
(20 to 30 u/a)
▪ Multiple-story, multiple-family projects, including condominiums and apartments located within or adjacent to Downtown or along arterial corridors served by public transit.
Commercial
Limited Office (LO) ▪ Transition area within commercial areas or between commercial areas and residential areas.
▪ Cluster of buildings built at a residential scale that provides professional office space.
General Office (GO) ▪ Professional and business offices and personal-service businesses with appropriate and compatible accessory uses.
▪ Can include rest homes; nursing homes; day-care facilities; hospitals; religious, educational, cultural, and public-utility uses; multiple family housing; and financial institutions.
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) ▪ Convenience and neighborhood shopping areas which provide a range of day-to-day retail goods and services.
Shopping Center (SC) ▪ Shopping centers serving a larger market area than a neighborhood center, but a smaller market than a regional center.
▪ Supermarket and combined drug/variety/garden business; tenants offering consumer goods and personal services; and office and clinic uses.
Packet Pg. 897
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PLACEWORKS 4-9
Land Use Designation Uses
Regional Commercial (RC) ▪ A mix of retail uses and associated services on a regional scale, including malls with several full-line department stores as anchor tenants.
General Commercial (GC) ▪ Existing commercial strips on arterial streets and interchange areas where commercial concentration are desirable.
▪ Can include retail stores, offices, and personal-service establishments.
Financial institutions, private schools, day-care facilities, convalescent hospitals, automobile sales and service, and similar uses also may be permitted subject to appropriate standards.
Mixed Use Core (MUC) ▪ Full range of uses in the Downtown area, including retail stores; eating and drinking establishments; commercial recreation; entertainment and cultural facilities; financial, business, and personal services; hospitals; hotels and motels; educational and social services; government offices, and residential uses.
Heavy Commercial (HC) ▪ For commercial businesses, particularly those not permitted in other commercial areas because of the large scale of the buildings and frequent truck deliveries which may have adverse impacts on other businesses.
▪ May include automobile services, building materials storage and sales, nurseries, equipment sales, wholesaling, storage, and similar uses.
Industrial
General Industry (GI) ▪ Wide variety of industrial activities and related uses generally characterized by their limited potential to create significant adverse visual, noise, or other impacts to adjoining public and residential properties.
▪ Industrial and business parks, offices, manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, warehousing, small and large-scale wholesale distribution, heavy equipment sales and repair, screened outdoor storage, and similar and compatible uses.
Heavy Industry (HI) ▪ Allows for the broadest range of industrial uses, including manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, warehousing, small- and largescale wholesale and distribution, railroad facilities, and similar and compatible uses.
Public Facilities/Airport
Airport Service (AS) ▪ For activities which are typically associated with airports and airport- related uses.
▪ Can include aircraft sales, service, and storage; charter services; and ancillary visitor services such as food, lodging, and car rentals.
Packet Pg. 898
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-10 FEBRUARY 2024
Land Use Designation Uses
Public Facilities or Institutional
(PF-I; PF-I-S)
▪ For public and quasi-public facilities, including, government services and facilities, fire stations, wastewater treatment facilities, electrical substations, airports, domestic water treatment and storage, landfills, and similar uses.
▪ Can also include schools and accredited secondary educational facilities, hospitals, and cemeteries, as well as appropriate lands controlled by philanthropic and nonprofit organizations for existing or future public uses.
Recreation/Open Space
Recreation (REC) ▪ Defined in the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan, this classification denotes areas for active water or beach-oriented recreation that utilizes the Kutras Lake as an asset.
▪ Use of facilities would be water-oriented, generally open in nature, seasonal in use, and without significant investment in buildings.
Greenway (GWY) ▪ For natural open space and includes slopes in excess of 20 percent and the 100-year floodplain of the Sacramento River and its tributary creeks and streams.
Overlays
Mixed Use Neighborhood Overlay ▪ Allows the creation of a mix of land uses in a compact pattern that will reduce dependency on the automobile and basin air quality impacts and promote high-quality, interactive neighborhoods.
▪
Critical Mineral Resource Overlay ▪ For areas identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as containing mineral resources of demonstrated/measured or inferred significance in locations that the City generally considers suitable for mineral-extraction activities.
▪ New development within and immediately adjacent to lands with this designation are subject to discretionary approval
4.4 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, as considerable or wh ich compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the changes caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to the proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.
The CEQA Guidelines (§15130[b][1]) state that the information used in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:
Packet Pg. 899
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PLACEWORKS 4-11
1. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, projects outside the control of the agency; or
2. A summary of projections in an adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
Depending on the environmental category, the cumulative impact analysis may use either method 1 or 2.
The cumulative impacts analyses in this DEIR use method No. 2. The proposed project consists of the Redding General Plan Update. Consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of development in accordance with buildout of the proposed land use plan. As a result, this DEIR addresses the cumulative impacts of development in the City of Redding and the region surrounding it, as appropriate. In most cases, the potential for cumulative impacts within the planning area. Potential cumulative impacts that have the potential for impacts beyond the City boundaries (e.g., traffic, air quality, noise) have been addressed through cumulative growth in the City and region. The growth projections adopted by the City and surrounding area are used for the cumulative impact analyses of this DEIR. Refer Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region for each environmental resource topic. A summary of the extent of cumulative impacts by environmental topic follows. ▪ Aesthetics: Coterminous with the City of Redding SOI boundary. ▪ Agricultural and Forestry Resources: Coterminous with the City of Redding and SOI. ▪ Air Quality: Based on the regional boundaries of the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin. ▪ Biological Resources: Coterminous with the City of Redding boundary but considers regional habitat loss in the northern California region based on the range of the protected species. ▪ Cultural Resources: Coterminous with the City of Redding planning area. ▪ Energy: Based on energy use within the City of Redding boundary. ▪ Geological Resources: Within the City of Redding boundary. ▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Worldwide impacts based on the emissions sectors in the Scoping Plan in California (boundary).
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Within the City boundaries. ▪ Hydrology and Water Quality: Hydrology and water quality impacts would be within the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, and flood impacts would be within the City of Redding boundary.
▪ Land Use and Planning: Within the City of Redding boundary but considers regional land use planning based on SRTA.
▪ Mineral Resources: Within the City of Redding SOI boundary. ▪ Noise: Within the City of Redding boundary.
Packet Pg. 900
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-12 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ Population and Housing: Within the City of Redding boundary. ▪ Public Services: Within the service area boundaries of the Redding Fire Department, Redding Police Department, Redding School District, and Shasta Public Library System. ▪ Recreation: Within the City of Redding boundary.
▪ Transportation: Considers regional transportation improvements identified in the SRTA RTP. ▪ Tribal Cultural Resources: Within the City of Redding SOI boundary, including development adjacent to Redding Rancheria.
▪ Utilities and Service Systems: Water supply and distribution systems and wastewater services impacts would be within the service area of the Redding Municipal Water and Wastewater Utility. ▪ Wildfire: Within the service area boundaries of the Redding Fire Department.
Packet Pg. 901
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PLACEWORKS 4-13
4.5 REFERENCES
Redding, City of, GIS. 2021, June 6. Redding City Limit, ArcGIS Online. https://data- redding.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/reddingcitylimit/explore?location=40.574465%2C- 122.362711%2C12.30
Shasta Local Agency Formation Commission. 2022, December 2. City of Redding Municipal Services Review & Sphere of Influence Update.
https://www.shastalafco.org/images/Local.Agencies/City_of_Redding_MSR_SOI_Update_Commis sion_Approved_December-2022.pdf
Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA). 2018, October. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region. https://www.srta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4285/2018-Regional-Transportation-Plan-- Sustainable-Communities-Strategy-adopted-Oct-9-2018?bidId= Accessed March 2022.
Packet Pg. 902
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4-14 FEBRUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 903
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
PLACEWORKS 5-1
Environmental Analysis
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
This chapter of the Draft EIR is made up of 18 sub-chapters. This chapter describes the format of this Draft EIR and the methodology of the cumulative impact analysis. The 18 sub-chapters evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed for the following environmental issue areas:
▪ Aesthetics (AES)
▪ Agriculture and Forestry Resources (AG)
▪ Air Quality (AQ)
▪ Biological Resources (BIO)
▪ Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (CULT, TCR) ▪ Energy (ENE)
▪ Geology and Soils (GEO)
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
▪ Land Use and Planning (LU)
▪ Mineral Resources (MIN)
▪ Noise (NOI)
▪ Population and Housing (POP)
▪ Public Services and Recreation (PS, REC)
▪ Transportation (TRANS)
▪ Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
▪ Wildfire (WILD)
FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Each subchapter is organized into three sections:
▪ Environmental Setting provides a description of the existing environmental conditions —providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Project can be compared —and an overview of federal, state, regional, and local laws and regulations relevant to that environmental issue. ▪ Thresholds of Significance refers to the quantitative or qualitative standards or conditions used to compare the existing setting with and without the proposed project to determine whether the impact is significant. These standards are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines, and may reflect Packet Pg. 904
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
5-2 FEBRUARY 2024
established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public service capacity standards, or guidelines established by agencies or experts.
▪ Impact Discussion gives an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed project and explains why impacts were found to be significant or less than significant and include suggested measures that would mitigate impacts with potentially significant or significant impact. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section. The following symbols are used for individual topics below. This subsection also includes a discussion of cumulative impacts of the proposed project. ▪ Cumulative Impacts gives an overview of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects and explains why impacts were found to cumulatively considerable or not cumulative considerable and include suggested measures that would mitigate impacts with potentially significant or significant impact. ▪ References
TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS DRAFT EIR
The level of significance is identified for each impact in this DEIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform determination of the environmental impact based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
▪ No impact. The project would not change the environment. ▪ Less than significant . The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.
▪ Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . The EIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
▪ Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
This EIR evaluates the proposed General Plan long range planning document that affects the entire Planning Area. Consequently, the environmental determination for each topic is based on a high -level assumption of future development, rather than an evaluation of every potential project on every possible building site. The impact determination for an impact , other than significant and unavoidable , assumes that development consistent with the General Plan would have a similar environmental determination.
Because it is not possible to know the details of every future project, and the potential environmental impacts associated with development and operation, the precise environmental determination will be made at the time of approval and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
For topics that conclude with a significant and unavoidable determination, the evidence in this EIR demonstrates that there is at least one instance where this finding would occur . Because this is a low threshold for making this determination, development projects may be found to a have a less than significant impact even though this EIR concludes significant and unavoidable for the same topic for the General Plan as a whole.
Packet Pg. 905
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-1
5.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions in the Plan Area related to aesthetics, and the potential impacts of the project on aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key state and local regulations and programs related to aesthetics in the City of Redding. There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to the proposed project.
State Regulations
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, California’s Scenic Highway Program was created to preserve and protect the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing this program are in the Streets and Hi ghways Code, Sections 260 to 263 . Caltrans oversees the program. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on three criteria described in Caltrans’ Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic Highways (2008) (Caltrans 2022):
▪ Vividness. The extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements.
▪ Intactness. The integrity of visual order and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions (e.g., buildings, structures, equipment, grading). ▪ Unity. The extent to which development is sensitive to and visually harmonious with the natural landscape.
California Building Code
The California Building Code, Part 2 of Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is based on the International Building Code and combines three types of building standards from three different origins:
▪ Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from the International Building Code.
▪ Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the International Building Code to meet California conditions.
Packet Pg. 906
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-2 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, which constitute extensive additions not covered by the International Building Code that have been adopted to address California concerns.
The California Building Code includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.
Local Regulations
City of Redding Municipal Code
The City of Redding Title 18, Zoning, identified the types o f permitted land uses throughout the various districts. Division III, Base District Regulations, under this title identified applicable use regulations, criteria for site development, performance standards, and design regulations. There criteria, standards and regulations include specific for residential zoning, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Division V, Overlay District Regulations, sets additional regulations for districts such as th e Planned Development Overlay, Mixed-Use Overlay, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Overlay District, Design Review Overlay, and Specific Plan Overlay District.
Exterior Lighting
Section 18.40.090 , Lighting, set standards for e xterior lighting in commercial, office , and industrial developments to eliminate spillover light and glare. Section 18.41.090, Lighting, sets lighting standards for off-street parking areas for nonresidential uses providing parking spaces.
Tree Management Ordinance
Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, aims to protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the community, promote a healthy and attractive urban landscape, recognize the importance of trees as a visual and physical buffer, preserve the city's valuable natural features, require the replacement of trees that are removed, establish a program for the planting of trees in new developments, and protect trees on undeveloped properties until such time as a development plan/building permit is approved. 2022 Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update
The Downtown Redding Specific Plan originally adopted in 2001 has been replaced with a 2022 update of the plan aimed to build on the previous Specific Plan and add new ideas that respond to the way people live, work, and play toda y. The Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update includes Chapter 6, Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines, which serves as the zoning code to guide new development in the Specific Plan area (Redding 2022).
Packet Pg. 907
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-3
2000-2020 Redding General Plan
The following policies are included in the existing General Plan regarding aesthetic resources.
Community Development and Design Element
▪ Goal CDD7: Retain the natural appearance of steep hillside areas and designated ridge lines. o Policy CDD7A: Protect the visual integrity of prominent ridge lines that can be viewed from key public gathering areas, the river, visitor destinations, and community gateways. These ridge areas are depicted on Figure 1 -4. Utilize one or more of the following measures to avoid or minimize development impacts:
▪ Public or private purchase of lands, the use of conservation easements, or similar measures.
▪ Performance standards, including limitations on building heights and/or increased ridge -line setbacks and standards for use of appropriate building forms, colors, and materials that blend into their surroundings. ▪ Goal CDD8: Promote the development of a cohesive, well-defined City. o Policy CDD8A: Maintain well -defined community edges using open -space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream courses, clustered development, and other appropriate types of landscape and design features.
o Policy CDD8B: Provide community “gateway” treatments, including signage and landscape, particularly in locations depicted on Figure 1 -5. Provide Downtown “gateway” treatments at appropriate locations.
o Policy CDD8C: Link special community facilities, parks, and other uses to and through the Downtown by establishing clear, convenient, and attractive pedestrian and vehicle connections.
▪ Goal CDD9: Preserve existing community character and fabric and promote the development of livable and cohesive neighborhoods and districts.
o Policy CDD9A: Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historically or architecturally significant districts, buildings, and structures. o Policy CDD9B: Establish standards for infill projects in existing residential neighborhoods that respect existing neighborhood scale and character. o Policy CDD9C: Establish design standards for new development that will create more livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. Promote compatibility between land uses by minimizing impacts to privacy, views, and noise and from intrusion of non- neighborhood traffic.
o Policy CDD9D: Design projects to provide gradual transitions between multiple -family and single -family districts and between commercial and residential districts by considering appropriate techniques such as:
Packet Pg. 908
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-4 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ Density/intensity transitions.
▪ Landscape buffers/trails.
▪ Building placement.
▪ Height transitions
▪ Goal CDD11: Ensure that new residential development is well -located and well-designed and can accommodate a mixture of housing types and uses.
o Policy CDD11A: Maximum residential densities within a given range are appropriate only for those projects that demonstrate superior design features and amenities. o Policy CDD11B: Establish residential design standards that address natural features, visibility of structures, variations in building design, garage placement, usable open space, access, and the relationship to surrounding uses. Site constraints may dictate that the maximum number of lots allowed by the General Plan classification for a given parcel of land may not be realized.
o Policy CDD11C: When zoning single-family residential areas within designated density ranges, use density afforded by the previous General Plan. Exceptions will be made where site topography, access, availability of utilities, and/or existing neighborhood character indicate that development potential should be either increased or reduced by zoning action.
o Policy CDD11E: Allow day-care facilities, churches, residential care facilities for the elderly, public and private schools, small grocery stores and other neighborhood - serving uses, and other ancillary uses in residential neighborhoods, provided that they are located and designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. ▪ Goal CDD14: Encourage project development which is compatible with surrounding properties and which improves the image of the City.
o Policy CDD14A: Establish design and performance standards for commercial development to ensure that building and site design are compatible with their surroundings in terms of scale, mass, building patterns, building details, location of parking, signage, and landscape a nd enhance views from major streets and other public areas.
o Policy CDD14B: Create an incentive program to encourage proposed projects to provide site amenities, site design, and building design that clearly exceed expected standards by providing:
▪ Unique project relationship to the surrounding community. ▪ Strong, consistent design style throughout the project. ▪ Imaginative solutions to providing development features such as:
• Signs.
• Parking lots.
Packet Pg. 909
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-5
• Screening and enclosing elements
• Project lightings
• Public art
• Landscape and water features
• On-Site and off-site pedestrian spaces and linkages
▪ Goal CDD16: Improve the visual attractiveness of the City’s arterial and collector streets; improve pedestrian safety.
o Policy CDD16A: Determine priorities and establish a program to retrofit existing arterial streets to include median and street-side landscape.
o Policy CDD16B: Provide sufficient right-of-way for sidewalks and street-side and median landscape and necessary utilities along new arterials and new collector streets. Install such improvements with the construction of the street where appropriate. o Policy CDD16C: Utilize Street tree-planting as a unifying visual element along the streets; establish a street tree-planting and maintenance program. ▪ Goal CDD19: Have the building setbacks and heights reflect the role and character of the various districts of the City.
o Policy CDD19A : Establish appropriate standards for buildings, massing, height, and setbacks for residential and commercial developments on arterial and collector streets that will define and reinforce the character of development districts in the city. o Policy CDD19B: Utilize Figure 1-5, in conjunction with the appropriate Focus Area maps and policies, to establish the appropriate locations for "mid -rise" and "high -rise" buildings in the community. High-rise buildings are only appropriate in the Downtown core area.
o Policy CDD19C: Establish appropriate standards and design criteria for mid -rise and high-rise buildings. The standards and criteria should address, among other items, the following:
▪ Definition and support of adjacent streets and open spaces. ▪ Integration with other buildings and open space on the block or in the area. ▪ Provision of high-quality pedestrian amenities.
▪ Recognition of the importance and role of the three main parts of tall buildings:
the base, middle (shaft), and top.
o Policy CDD19D: Establish procedures for instituting an Architectural Review Committee to review and make recommendations proposals for mid -rise and high-rise buildings.
The Committee should include individuals with specific expertise and experience in the design and construction of these building types.
Packet Pg. 910
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-6 FEBRUARY 2024
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The aesthetic resources in an urban area, such as the City of Redding, consists of unique or architecturally recognized buildings, historic structures or other buildings, street trees, plazas, parks, key vegetation, and important view corridors that contribute to the community identity. In urbanized areas, views and view corridors often extend along City streets and may include foreground views of street trees, architecturally notable or historic structures, plazas and the urban streetscape or more distant backdrop views such as those of mountains, water bodies, parks, and open spaces.
Visual Character and Quality
The City of Redding is part of Shasta County in Northern California and is the largest city north of Sacramento. Redding is bordered by unincorporated Shasta County land. The city is surrounded by mountains to the north, east, and west and farmland to the south. The City is surrounded by mountain ranges, lakes, waterfalls, and hiking trails. The city is a near Whiskeytown National Recreation Area to the west, Shasta (Lake )National Recreation Area and the Shasta Trinity National Forest to the north, and Lassen Volcanic National Park to the east. The City is traversed by Interstate 5 (I -5), which runs in a north-south direction. State Highways 299, 273, and 44 also pass through Redding. Redding is also bisected by the Sacramento River, which flows south to Sacramento and into San Francisco Bay. The Central and Western portion of Redding can be characterized as having a commercial and office core with surrounding residential uses. The Northeast Redding is characterized as having commercial development and suburban residential.
Scenic Vistas
Lassen Volcanic National Park
The active volcano of Lassen Peak, which shook the region with eruptions of lava and ash for years during the 1910s, forms the centerpiece of this 106,000 -acre national park. The park is l ocated 45 miles east of Redding (Redding 2022a). On a clear day Lassen Peak, often covered in snow, is visible from Redding.
Sacramento River
The Sacramento River is the longest river in California stretching from the Klamath Mountains to the north to the San Francisco Bay. The river is an important feature in Redding with several bridges, trails, fishing spots, and viewsheds.
Sacramento River National Recreation Trail
The Sacramento River National Recreation Trail is comprised of two distinct trail systems. The Sacramento River Trail encompasses the world -famous Sundial Bridge at Turtle Bay Exploration Park, in the heart of Redding. The Sacramento River Rail Trail exten ds north to the Shasta Dam and sits alongside an historic abandoned railway. Both trails have been designated as National Recreation Trails in the National Trail System (Redding 2022a).
Packet Pg. 911
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-7
Sundial Bridge
The Sundial Bridge at Turtle Bay crosses the Sacramento River in the heart of Redding, California. The Sundial Bridge casts its gnomon shadow upon a dial to the north of the bridge accurately once a year during the summer solstice. With the objective of providing pedestrian access to the north and south of Turtle Bay Exploration Park, the Sundial Bridge has also become an icon for the City of Redding (Redding 2022b).
Highways
Caltrans lists two eligible and one officially designated scenic highway within Shasta County (Caltrans 2022b). I-5 is listed as an eligible scenic highway and bisects the city from north to south. Route 44 is also listed as an eligible scenic highway and starts within the City and travels eastward. Shasta Dam Boulevard west from Lake Boulevard is an officially designated scenic highway and is approximately 3.4 miles north of Oasis Rd.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that, “except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,” a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
AES-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
AES-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
AES-3 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings . (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
AES-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
AES-5 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics.
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Community Development and Design Element
▪ Policy CDD4D: Work to ensure that the design and construction of new bridges complements the surrounding landscape, as appropriate.
Packet Pg. 912
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-8 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ Policy CDD4E: Pursue open space accessways that complement existing development and, where applicable, protect the privacy and security of adjoining residences. ▪ Policy CDD7B: Link special community facilities, parks, and other uses to and through Downtown by establishing clear, accessible, convenient, and attractive pedestrian, bike, and automobile connections where appropriate and feasible.
▪ Policy CDD6A: Strive to protect the visual integrity of prominent ridge lines (see figure CDD-4) and avoid alterations to the topography that can be viewed from vista points. The City should consider the use of tools such as the following to avoid or minimize development impacts:
o Purchase of land (public or public-private partnerships) o Creating conservation easements or similar measures
o Utilizing design measures such as building height limitations, increased ridge-line setbacks, and/ or standards for use of appropriate building forms, colors, and materials that blend into the surroundings
▪ Policy CDD7A: Strive to maintain well -defined community edges using open space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream corridors, and other natural features. Where this is not feasible, utilize City -wide “gateway” treatments through signage and/or identifiable landscape features or other aesthetic elements.
▪ Policy CDD7C: Strive to develop and adopt a citywide Directional Sign Program by identifying and establishing districts and neighborhoods; incorporating landscape, banners, flags, art, and displays to enhance visual attractiveness and historical and cultural significanc e that would help define destinations and meet current and future needs of the diverse population in the community. ▪ Policy CDD7D: Consider As appropriate, develop graphic standards and artistic directional signage for local streets, plazas, the river, trails, community centers, and other landmarks focused on local identity, aesthetics, and visibility to establish a high quality, appropriate, and an attractive brand identity and design as a key strategy to enhance the quality of life, the community and promote tourism and economic development.
▪ Policy CDD7E: Collaborate with public and private agencies and organizations, as appropriate, to create distinct, fundamental, and enhanced navigational elements that resonate with the community’s identity and vision.
▪ Policy CDD7F: Work with property owners to establish Downtown "gateway" treatments at appropriate locations and enhance the livability and character of Downtown by establishing a distinct theme for community wayfinding through inclusive and identifiable navigational elements, map kiosks, and pedestrian and off-street signs.
▪ Policy CDD8G: Consider the development and application of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or similar mechanism to protect identified historic districts and ensure new developments share similar characteristics to minimize adverse effects that occur through unsuitable development
Packet Pg. 913
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-9
▪ Policy CDD8H: Strive to ensure that new developments reflect the existing physical characteristics, building design, streetscape, open space requirements, and urban form that preserve and contribute to the overall character and livability of the established neighborhood. ▪ Policy CDD9A: Encourage new Require new residential, office, and commercial development to reflect enduring and interesting, and attractive designs and to provide community amenities, as appropriate.
▪ Policy CDD9B: Consider adopting development guidelines that address, among other things:
o Ensuring that buildings are designed to be attractive assets to the neighborhood and City and exhibit attributes of quality and permanence, minimize the use of blank, unarticulated walls, and include interesting architectural features and details. o Pedestrian oriented designs and amenities are provided that include, among other items, appropriate scale lighting, benches, landscape, and shade trees. o Incorporates Crime prevention Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, as appropriate.
▪ Policy CDD10C: Consider establishing incentives for medium - to high -density, mixed -use developments, where appropriate, with emphasis on Downtown and in the "Mixed Use Neighborhood Overlay" Districts. Review and amend as necessary the Mixed Use Neighborhood Overlay zoning district to ensure that it serves to facilitate and incentivize the development of new mixed use neighborhoods to the extent feasible.
▪ Policy CDD10D: Encourage development in the City to include inviting, attractive, accessible, and walkable urban mixed-use neighborhoods combining residential, commercial, recreational, open space, and employment to maximize the use of underused urban lots. ▪ Policy CDD11F: Consider establishing Establish objective residential design standards that address such items as natural features, visibility of structures, variations in building design features such as massing, articulation, roof form, street presentation, garage placement, usable open space, access, and the relationship to surrounding uses. Site constraints may dictate that the maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed by the General Plan classification for a given parcel of land may not be realized.
▪ Policy CDD12A: Establish design standards for new development that will create more livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, as funding allows. Promote compatibility between land uses by minimizing impacts to privacy, views, and noise and protecting against intrusions of non - neighborhood traffic.
▪ Policy CDD12G: New development projects should provide gradual transitions between multiple - family and single-family districts and between commercial and residential districts by considering appropriate techniques such as:
o Density.
o Intensity transitions.
o Landscape buffers.
Packet Pg. 914
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-10 FEBRUARY 2024
o Trails.
o Building placement.
o Height transitions.
▪ Policy CDD12H: Strive to ensure adequate street and landscape maintenance, law enforcement, code enforcement, litter, and graffiti control to provide safe and attractive neighborhoods for residents
▪ Policy CDD14A: Consider establishing Establish design and performance standards for commercial development as may be appropriate to ensure that building and site design are vibrant, convenient, attractive, and are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, building patterns, building details, location and visibility of parking, signage, and landscape and enhance views from major streets and other public areas.
▪ Policy CDD14B: Consider requiring Require that the design of large commercial projects, shopping centers, and regional scale developments to incorporate plazas, courtyards, and other outdoor gathering places and connections to adjacent residential neighborhoods, as appropriate. ▪ Policy CDD15A: Endeavor to reduce the visual clutter and promote a continuous, distinctive, and well-coordinated master sign program in select commercial corridors. ▪ Policy CDD15B: Consider requiring Require that new developments should to include landscape and signage plans along with other project details during the pre -application and/or formal application process for review
▪ Policy CDD15C: The design and size of signs in established neighborhoods should fit within the architectural order of the façade and do not obscure or damage the integrity of the building. ▪ Policy CDD16A: Street tree-planting should be a unifying visual element along the streets and strive to establish a program to retrofit existing arterial streets to include median and street -side landscape.
▪ Policy CDD16D: Enhance efforts to screen unattractive or distracting elements with landscape to alter the effect of large retaining walls, large parking lots, bleak surfaces, and unattractive views by considering appropriate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the development review process.
▪ Policy CDD 16E: Consider adopting and implementing a Master Street Plan, identifying the hierarchy of streets and appropriate streetscape elements that also considers the requirements of emergency response personnel. A Master Plan may include such items as:
o Traffic calming features and design treatment (e.g., bike boxes, barriers, distinct pavement features, delineated markers and reflective paint, medians, etc.,) o Lighting layout (e.g., identify any needed changes to current street light spacing standards and equipment to ensure adequate sidewalk/pedestrian area lighting, use of pedestrian scale- lighting techniques etc.)
o Height, spacing, and scale of street fixtures and furniture Packet Pg. 915
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-11
o Width and paving materials for sidewalks
o Signage and public art
o Ground-level businesses to support
o Street connectivity
o Landscape and street trees with root barriers, in compliance with a comprehensive Tree Plan.
▪ Policy CDD16F: Consider establishing a comprehensive landscape and vegetation management program that incorporates the City’s urban landscape and open space lands to enhance the landscape aesthetic of the City and more effectively protects the community from wildfire hazards.
The program could be responsible for the following and additional activities as may be appropriate:
o Overseeing the City’s street tree program, including recommendations on appropriate trees and long-term maintenance
o Reviewing and approval of landscape plans developed in conjunction with private development activities such as commercial and office developments, residential planned developments, proposed landscape maintenance districts, stormwater detention basins, and similar developments and facilities
o Review and consider, in concert with appropriate public safety agencies, vegetation modifications and long -term management plans in Redding’s wildland -urban interface areas to protect new and existing developments from wildfire o Identifying and seeking local, State, and federal funds as well as grants and other financial resources to accomplish the above activities
▪ Policy CDD19A: Consider establishing appropriate standards for buildings, massing, height, and setbacks for residential and commercial developments on arterial and collector streets that will define and reinforce the character of development districts in the city, while respecting cultural and historical landmarks and places of interest
▪ Policy CDD19C: Consider establishing appropriate design standards and criteria for mid -rise and high-rise buildings. The standards and criteria should address, among other items, the following:
o Setbacks, step -backs, architectural design, massing, scale, form, site design, and transparency
o Definition and support of adjacent streets and open spaces o Integration with other buildings and open space on the block or in the area o Provision of high-quality pedestrian amenities
o Recognition of the importance and role of the three main parts of tall buildings: the base, middle (shaft), and top
Packet Pg. 916
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-12 FEBRUARY 2024
o Application of Building Code and other appropriate safety requirements ▪ Policy CDD20A: Utilize public art to create identifiable districts, places, and special locations in the public domain by:
o Encouraging the integration of art into the architecture of municipal structures, facilities, parks, open space, and other public areas.
o Involving artists and specialized design professionals in the design, implementation, and integration of art in public projects.
▪ Policy CDD20B: Continue to identify opportunities for public art in neighborhoods, specifically Redding Downtown and reinforce place -keeping goals by commissioning artwork that is themed, visually distinctive, and associated with the identity, history, and diversity of the city and specific neighborhoods.
▪ Policy CDD20C: Promote public art as an urban beautification effort, engaging and partnering with artists, design professionals, galleries, museums, architects, art professionals, urban planners, universities, community members, businesses, and other stakeholders in prio ritizing and working on art projects in the city as funding allows.
▪ Policy CDD20I: Public art should not be considered as a substitute for including appropriate design features in new development. For existing developments, consider blank facades, light poles, medians, utility boxes, mosaic fountains, railings, fire hydrants, parking str ips, and underpasses along arterials and automobile-dominated areas for large, prominent public art.
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element
▪ Policy R13H: Consider establishing a comprehensive landscape and vegetation management program incorporating the City’s urban landscape and open space lands to:
o Enhance the landscape aesthetics of the city.
o Educate and promote the importance and benefits of urban forest. o Minimize heat island effects.
o Provide shade by creating a canopy.
o Pursue and establish adequate funding mechanisms to manage and maintain tree planting, maintenance costs, training, removal, and replacement of public trees. ▪ Policy R13I: Update the City’s Tree Management Ordinance as necessary to reflect current standards and programs to protect, preserve, restore and replant native trees.
Natural Resources Element
▪ Policy NR6A: Strive to preserve and protect existing native oaks, especially valley oaks that are often associated with riparian habitats, in the design and review of development projects. The preservation of stands of trees within developments is generally preferred over preservation of Packet Pg. 917
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-13
individual trees, with the exception of special-status species, heritage trees, and other trees as may be identified in the City’s Municipal Code.
▪ Policy NR6B: Consider identifying appropriate "areas” to be used for the planting of native trees when desirable to offset development impacts to woodland resources. This General Plan explicitly recognizes that there are tradeoffs between the goals and policies that promote infill development over outward expansion and resultant impacts to woodland resources within the future urban footprint.
▪ Policy NR6C: Periodically review and consider amendments to the City’s Tree Management Ordinance to assess tree replacement requirements, tree planting requirements, potential fees or other mechanisms to facilitate the planting of trees in the City and funding of an u rban forestry program.
▪ Policy NR6E: Consider undertaking measures to maintain and expand the urban forest by:
o Maintaining existing City trees through regular, scheduled service. o Planting new trees to replace those that require removal and enhance the street tree canopy, where needed.
o Requiring street and parking lot tree planting in new development. o Working with commercial parking lot owners to improve the shade canopy. o Implementing the Zoning Code’s tree protection regulations. o Using volunteer groups and property owners to plant new trees, care for newly planted trees, maintain young trees, and provide information and instructions regarding such care and maintenance, and
o Exploring funding opportunities for the urban forest program
IMPACT DISCUSSION
AES-1: The proposed project would not substantially alter or damage scenic vistas or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. [AES-1] [AE-2]
Scenic resources identified in the City’s General Plan include the Sacramento River and its tributaries; mountains and foothills; and open hillsides. The General Plan Update would keep existing land use designations and focus on development in areas of the city where services exist or can be expanded or extended. Buildout in accordance with the General Plan Update would consist mainly of infill and redevelopment efforts as well as new development within identified “growth areas” . Although new development wo uld alter the appearance of the existing conditions, it would not create a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or degrade the City’s visual character or quality due to the existing urbanized character of the city. Development under the General Plan Update would adhere to the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.60.050, Connections with the natural environment , which requires that the design of a Packet Pg. 918
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-14 FEBRUARY 2024
subdivision take advantage of and integrate natural features into project design. Compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 would help to ensure that future projects provide opportunity for the public views and access.
There are two eligible scenic highways within the planning area: I -5 and CSR 44 and are surrounded by residential and commercial areas. The nearest state designated highway is 3.4 miles north of the city.
Although new development under the General Plan Update would alter the appearance of the existing conditions, it would not create a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or degrade the City’s visual character or quality due to the urbanized character of the City. Future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with Section 18.40.050, Design Criteria, under the City’s Municipal Code, which will guide future development characteristics including site design. The General Plan Update would be consistent with the existing visual character of the residential and commercial development throughout the city.
General Plan Update also includes policies aimed to preserve the visual quality and scenic views within the City and ensure that new development would be aesthetically compatible with surrounding areas:
▪ Policy CDD4D: Work to ensure the design and construction of new bridges complements the surrounding landscape as appropriate.
▪ Policy CDD8H: Strive to ensure that new developments reflect the existing physical characteristics, building design, streetscape, open space requirements, and urban form that preserve and contribute to the overall character and livability of the established neighborhood. ▪ Policy CDD12A: Establish design standards for new development that will create more livable and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, as funding allows. Promote compatibility between land uses by minimizing impacts to privacy, views, and noise and protecting against intrusions of non - neighborhood traffic.
▪ Policy CDD14A: Consider establishing Establish design and performance standards for commercial development as may be appropriate to ensure that building and site design are compatible with the surroundings in terms of scale, mass, building patterns, building details, location of parking, signage, and landscape and enhance views from major streets and other public areas.
The Public Resources Code §12220(g) defines “Forest land” as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. As noted in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, there are a total of 16,466 acres of forested area in the City’s SOI (Blue Oak Woodland, Blue O ak-Foothill Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Valley Oak Woodland). Although, buildout in accordance with the General Plan Update would largely consist of infill and redevelopment , development under the proposed project can create aesthetic impacts through the conversion of forest to non-forest lands.
Packet Pg. 919
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-15
The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 18.45, Tree Management, which outlines tree removal provisions, tree protection guidelines, and other provisions concerning trees and their management. The ordinance is intended to protect and enhance the community’s aesthetic provided by native and non-native trees. The ordinance also sets requirements for the replacement of removed trees, establishes a tree planting program for new development, and requires a tree removal permit for removal of trees on vacant or undeveloped land. In addition, the General Plan Update includes Policy R13I from the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element which states the City will update the City’s Tree Management Ordinance as necessary to reflect current standards and programs to protect, preserve, restore and replant native trees. In addition, the Natural Resources Element includes policies aimed at preserving and protecting trees from future development such as Policy NR6A which seeks to preserve and protect existing native oaks in the design and review of development projects. Policy NR6B considers identifying appropriate "areas" to be used for the planting of native trees to offset development impacts to woodland resources. Therefore, following the City’s Municipal Code and proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that development under the General Plan Update would not substantially degrade the views and visual character of the City. Impacts on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AES-1 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings nor conflict with applicable zoning and other regulation governing scenic quality in non- urbanized areas. [AES-3]
The General Plan Update would keep existing land use designations and focus on development in areas of the city where services exist or can be expanded or extended . Construction activities may include grubbing/clearing grading and compaction of soils, installation of utilities, construction of buildings, paving, and landscaping. While surrounding receptors would have views of construction sites, projects will be temporary in duration and will not be exposed all at once.
The General Plan Update policies would ensure that future development and redevelopment would enhance vitality, context, form, and function. These policies support development in the City and seek to establish and/or retain the City’s sense of place. The development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with existing City regulations that maintain the City’s character such as the development code from the City of Redding. The General Plan Update includes policies aimed to preserve the existing visual character of the City while also introducing new development that would be compatible.
By complying with the City’s existing regulations and the General Plan Update policies, such as Policy CDD8H, Policy CDD12A, and Policy CDD14A mentioned in Impact AES-1, future development would reflect Packet Pg. 920
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-16 FEBRUARY 2024
and maintain the City’s existing visual character and resources. As the proposed project would not change land use designations or zone then the General Plan Update would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AES-2 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
AES-3: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area . [AES-4]
The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spillover light. Spillover light is caused by misdirected light that illuminates areas outside the intended area. Glare is light that shines directly or is reflected from a surface into a viewer’s eyes. Spillover light and glare impacts are effects of a project’s lighting on adjoining uses and areas.
Light and glare may be caused by street and parking lot lighting, building or landscape lighting, illuminated signs, recreational facilities, and to some extent interior lighting of residential and nonresidential buildings.
Materials such as glass, metal, and polished surfaces can contribute to glare. Excessive light and glare c an interfere with the scenic quality of an area and contribute to light pollution.
Future development under the General Plan Update would contribute to light pollution. For instance, the conversion of underutilized or vacant areas into residential or commercial uses would introduce new sources of light. However, future development and redevelopment projects in the City would be required to comply with the City ’s Municipal Code. For example, development of commercial, office, and industrial projects would be required to comply with the City of Redding Municipal Code Section 18.40.090, Lighting, which eliminates light spillover and glare. In addition, Municipal Code Section 18.41.090, Lighting, has guidelines and regulations for lighting pertaining to off-street parking areas for nonresidential uses in order to mitigate unreasonable annoyance to occupants of neighboring properties or the general public. In addition, the General Plan Update includes Policy CDD 16E which would require adopting a lighting layout for the City to identify the hierarchy of streets and appropriate streetscape elements. Following regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and policy in the General Plan would not generate substantial additional light and glare and the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AES-3 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Packet Pg. 921
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 5.1-17
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
AES-4 The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics. [AES-5]
The General Plan Update could result in changes to the visual character and quality of Redding through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities. However, goals and policies in the proposed General Plan Update, combined with other local regulations, would reduce project-level aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level.
When combined with the over all growth trends in the region, the conversion of the area around the City from a rural (homes on large land holdings) to a more urban appearance (more buildings, built environment) will change the visual appearance of the City and areas around the City. This continues a trend of development in the region that started when the City incorporated in 1887. While the proposed project does not change the existing land use pattern it does pull back planning area boundaries by approximately 18 percent to reduce the potential for annexation outside of the adopted sphere of influence. (See Figures 3-2 and 3-3) In addition, City policies in the General Plan as well as mandates from the state, encourage the efficient use of land and incentivize infill development. Economics suggest that rebuilding or e nhancing areas that already have water, sewer, and other public services, saves the cost of extending new services to undeveloped area. The proposed project would be expected to result in less expansion into the rural area surrounding the City in favor of a compact urban form that makes efficient use of existing resources. As a result, while there will be change in the views of agricultural land that surround the City as expansion occurs, the expansion will be managed through the General Plan, and is unlikely to result in a cumulative ly significant aesthetic impact. In addition to local policies to avoid urbanization of open space, the California’s Scenic Highway Program would help mitigate potential impacts along scenic corridors by preserving views and open space land.
Light pollution has the potential to become an issue of increasing concern in the region as new development contributes additional outdoor lighting installed for safety and other reasons. Redding may be adversely affected not only by light pollution from development. However, future development in all jurisdictions will be subject to the California Building Code standards that would prevent potential impacts associated with light and glare. Overall, the cumulative aesthetic impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AES-4 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Packet Pg. 922
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AESTHETICS
5.1-18 FEBRUARY 2024
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022 (accessed). Scenic Highways: California State Scenic Highway. Accessed May 2, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
Redding, City of. 2022a. Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update. https://www.cityofredding.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5529/637932394784630000. ______. 2022b, December 11 (accessed). About Us. https://www.cityofredding.org/about-us. ______. 2022c, December 11 (accessed). Historic Redding California. https://www.cityofredding.org/about-us/brief-history-of-redding.
Packet Pg. 923
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-1
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions in the City of Redding related to agriculture and forestry resources , and the potential impacts of the proposed project on agriculture and forestry resources.
5.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California General Plan Law
The California Government Code (§ 65302(d)) requires the general plan to include an open space and conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources —including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element must consider the effect of development on natural resources that are on public lands. The element must also cover:
▪ The reclamation of land and waters.
▪ Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. ▪ Regulation of the use of land for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. ▪ Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. ▪ Protection of watersheds.
▪ Location, quantity, and quality of the rock, sand, and gravel resources. ▪ Waterways, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for groundwater recharge and stormwater management.
In October 2017, the state legislature passed SB 732, which authorizes a city to develop an agricultural land component of the open space element or a separate agricultural element in its general plan. For local governments that choose this option, the bill authorizes the Department of Conservation to award grants, bond proceeds, and other assistance provided the element meets certain requirements.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Natural Resources Agency is charged with restoring, protecting, and maintaining the state’s natural, cultural, and historical resources. The State Department of Conservation (DOC) provides technical services and information to promote informed land use decisions and sound management of the State’s Packet Pg. 924
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-2 FEBRUARY 2023
natural resources. DOC manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. FMMP publishes a field report for each county in the state. The most recent field report for Shasta County was published in 201 8. The field report categorizes land by agricultural production potential, according to the following classifications:
▪ Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long -term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. ▪ Farmland of Statewide Importance is like Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. ▪ Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used to produce the state’s leading agricultural crops.
This land is usually irrigated but may include no irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed at some ti me during the four years prior to the mapping date.
▪ Farmland of Local Importance includes dryland grain producing lands and farmlands that are presently irrigated but do not meet the soil characteristics of Prime or Statewide. The majority of these farmlands are located within the Anderson Cottonwood Irrigation District. These soils include New ton gravelly loam (8 to 15 percent slopes), Moda loam, seeped (0 to 3 percent slopes), Moda loam, shallow (0 to 5 percent slopes), and Hillgate loam (DOC 2018).
▪ Grazing Land is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. ▪ Confined Animal Agriculture lands include poultry facilities, feedlots, dairy facilities, and fish farms. In some counties, confined animal agriculture is a component of the farmland of local importance category.
▪ Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation includes heavily wooded, rocky, or barren areas; riparian and wetland areas; grassland areas that do not qualify for grazing land due to their size or land management restrictions; small water bodies; and recreational water ski lakes. Constructed wetlands are also included in this category.
▪ Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial Land includes farmstead, agricultural storage and packing sheds, unpaved parking areas, composting facilities, equine facilities, firewood lots, and campgrounds. ▪ Vacant or Disturbed Land includes open field areas that do not qualify for an agricultural category, mineral and oil extraction areas, off-road vehicle areas, electrical substations, channelized canals, and rural freeway interchanges.
▪ Rural Residential Land includes residential areas of one to five structures per 10 acres.
Packet Pg. 925
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-3
▪ Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit per 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10 -acre parcel. Common examples include residential structures, industrial structures, commercial structures, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment structures, and water control structures. ▪ Water is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act, conserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive land use contracts administered by local governments under State regulations. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space uses under minimum 10 -year rolling term contracts, with counties and cities also acting voluntarily. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. Nonrenewal status is applied to Williamson Act contracts that are within the nine-year termination process, during which the annual tax assessment for the property gradually increases.
Forestland and Timberland Protection
State regulations such as the Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 and the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (California Forest Practice Act) provide for the preservation of forest lands from encroachment by other, incompatible land uses and for oversight of the management of forest practices and forest resources.
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” for the purposes of CEQA as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water-quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
The California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982, like the Land Conservation Act, was passed to encourage the production of timber resources. Government Code Section 51104(g) defines “Timber,” “Timberland,” and “Timberland Production Zone” for the purposes of CEQA and “Timberland Preserve Zone,” which may be used in city and county general plans.
▪ “Timber” means trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest production purposes, whether planted or of natural growth, standing or down, on privately or publicly owned land, including Christmas trees, but does not mean nursery stock.
▪ “Timberland” means privately owned land, or land acquired for State forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre.
Packet Pg. 926
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-4 FEBRUARY 2023
▪ “Timberland Production Zone” or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h). With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, “Timberland Preserve Zone” means “Timberland Production Zone.” Local Regulations
2000-2020 Redding General Plan
The following policies are included in the existing General Plan regarding agricultural resources.
Community Development & Design Element
▪ Goal CDD8: Promote the development of a cohesive, well-defined City. o Policy CDD8A: Maintain well -defined community edges using open -space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream courses, clustered development, and other appropriate types of landscape and design features.
Natural Resources Element
▪ Goal NR15: Promote the economic viability of agriculture in areas suited for agriculture use. o Policy NR15A: Protect existing prime agricultural soils outside the primary and secondary growth areas and freeway interchange areas with lot sizes (five acres and larger) capable of supporting agricultural operations.
o Policy NR15B: Discourage the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts until it is demonstrated that the lands with such contracts will be needed for urban development in the immediate future.
o Policy NR15C: Establish performance criteria to minimize impacts of urban development near existing income -producing agricultural lands on agricultural practices and reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses.
City of Redding Municipal Code
Title 18 of Redding’s Municipal Code outlines the city’s zoning ordinance and establishes regulations governing the use, placement, spacing, and size of development. Specifically, Rural Lands District (Chapter
18.30) prescribes land use regulations for Rural Lands (RL) Districts. Regulations are set for the different land use classifications for RL.
Tree planting requirements for all new construction are outlined in the City's Municipal Code Section
18.45.120, Tree Planting Requirements. Specific requirements are set forth depending on the project type such as residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Packet Pg. 927
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Agricultural Uses
The planning area is primarily classified for residential use, commercial/industrial, and mixed use. Limited agricultural uses such as farming and grazing occur on several isolated parcels some of which are also designated for residential or other uses. More extensive agricultural uses occur within open space areas at the periphery of the Planning Area generally outside of the proposed Primary and Secondary Growth Areas.
Notable existing open space areas in the Redding planning area include the Kapu sta property, Riverland Open Space, Stillwater Creek, and the “Churn Creek Bottom” area. The Riverland Open Space consists of 54 acres and is located on the east side of the Sacramento River . The area is managed by the City of Redding and Bureau of Land Management. The Kapusta Property contain 100 acres which is managed by the City of Redding and is located south of the City limits, on the west side of the Sacramento River . The Stillwater Creek Area runs north to south along Stillwater Creek and is identified a s having prime agricultural soil (Redding 2018).
Agricultural Designations and Williamson Act Contracts
The California Important Farmland Finder designates the city of Redding as primarily Urban and Built -Up Land (DOC 2023). As shown in Figure 5.2-1, Designated Farmland within the City of Redding, Prime Farmland is located in the vicinity of State Route 273 and South Bonnyview Road inside City limits. Figure 5.2 -2, Designated Farmland in the Planning Area, shows the locations of designated farmland within the entirety of the Planning Area. There are no Williamson contracts within the planning area (DOC 2017). Table 5.2-1, Farmland Acreage in Redding , shows the acreages of existing farmland designated by the Department of Conservation in the City of Redding’s City Limits and Planning Area.
TABLE 5.2-1 FARMLAND ACREAGE IN REDDING (ACRES)
Farmland Type City Limits SOI1 Planning Area2
Prime Farmland 149 60 953
Farmland of Statewide Importance 1 -- 84
Farmland of Local Importance 444 8 474
Unique Farmland 12 -- 12
TOTAL 606 68 1,523
Source: DOC 2018
1 These values reflect the acreage of farmland within the SOI excluding farmland within the City limits 2 These values reflect the acreage of farmland in the Proposed Planning Area excluding farmland within the City limits and SOI Packet Pg. 928
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-6 FEBRUARY 2023
Forestland and Timberland
The City of Redding is near two national park and recreation areas. The Lassen Volcanic National Park is located 48 miles east of the City of Redding and the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area is located eight miles west of the City.
The City of Redding does not designate any land within the City, SOI, or Planning Area as “Timber” , “Timberland”, or “Timberland Production Zone”, according to Government Code Section 51104(g). As shown in Figure 5. 4-1, CalVeg Land Cover , in Chapter 5.4, Biological Resources, forest land cover in the Redding SOI consists of Blue Oak Woodland , Blue Oak-Foothill Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Valley Oak Woodland land cover types. Table 5.2 -2, Forestland Acreage in Redding SOI, shows the acreages of these forestland cover types.
TABLE 5.2-2 FORESTLAND ACREAGE IN REDDING SOI
Land Cover Type Acres
Blue Oak Woodland 8,813
Blue Oak-Foothill Pine 6,275
Montane Hardwood 54
Valley Oak Woodland 1,324
TOTAL 16,466
Source: ECORP (Appendix 5.4-1)
Packet Pg. 929
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcMap, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021, and 2022; California Department of Conservation, 2018.
Figure 5.2-1
Designated Farmland within the City of Redding
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
299
CALIFORNIA
5.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Pine Grove AvePine Grove Ave
Shasta Dam BlvdShasta Dam Blvd
Lake BlvdLake Blvd
Bear Mountain RdBear Mountain Rd
Oasis RdOasis Rd
Keswick Dam RdKeswick Dam Rd
Quartz Hill RdQuartz Hill Rd
Placer StPlacer St
Buenaventura BlvdBuenaventura Blvd
Shasta Shasta Vista DrVista Dr
Victor AveVictor Ave
Hartnell AveHartnell Ave
Boyle RdBoyle Rd
Old Alturas RdOld Alturas Rd
Old Alturas RdOld Alturas Rd
Old Oregon TrlOld Oregon Trl
Old 44 RdOld 44 Rd
Alta Mesa DrAlta Mesa Dr
Airport RdAirport Rd
Chum Crk RdChum Crk Rd
Rancho RdRancho Rd
S Bonnyview RdS Bonnyview Rd
Meadow View DrMeadow View Dr
Dersch RdDersch Rd
Placer StPlacer St
Lower Springs RdLower Springs Rd
Branstetter LnBranstetter Ln
Texas Springs Texas Springs
RdRd
Clear Creek RdClear Creek Rd
Canyon RdCanyon Rd
Riverside AveRiverside Ave
Cypress AveCypress Ave
Hawthorne AveHawthorne Ave
China Gulch DrChina Gulch Dr
Oak StOak St
Packet Pg. 930
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATED DRAFT EIR
CITY OF REDDING
Source: Generated using ArcMap, 2023; City of Redding GIS 2017, 2021, and 2022; California Department of Conservation, 2018.
Figure 5.2-2
Designated Farmland in the Planning Area
0 Scale (Miles)
2 PLACEWORKS
5.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Packet Pg. 931
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-9
5.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.
AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use.
AG-6 In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in cumulative impacts with respect to agricultural and forestry resources.
5.2.3 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The following are relevant policies of the Redding General Plan Update, which may reduce impacts to agriculture and forestry resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
Community Development and Design Element
▪ Policy CDD6B: Consider establishing hillside development standards to:
o Decrease allowable residential densities with an increase in site slope. o Limit excessive grading on slopes.
o Encourage the use of multiple levels where appropriate, so buildings are set into and stepped down the hill.
o Minimize deforestation and disturbance of native vegetation outside the approved building footprints and street utility corridors, while considering the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for wildland fire protection.
Packet Pg. 932
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-10 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ Policy CDD7A: Strive to maintain well -defined community edges using open space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream corridors, and other natural features. Where this is not feasible, utilize City-wide “gateway” treatments through signage and/or identifiable landscape features or other aesthetic elements.
Natural Resources Element
▪ Policy NR12A: Consider requiring buffers for new development to minimize impacts of adjacent active agricultural operations to reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. ▪ Policy NR12B: New development proposed on “prime” soils and/or Farmland of Local Importance should be encouraged to provide opportunities for community gardens, edible landscape gardens, community food forests (landscapes with trees, shrubs, and herbs, consisting of pri marily edible plants), or similar projects to enable residents and community members to grow local food produce.
▪ Policy NR12C: Strive to avoid fragmentation and conversion of agriculturally managed land in high-fire severity zones where fragmentation, conversion, or change in management could increase the risk of fire to the community.
▪ Policy NR12D: Explore the appropriateness of expanding the types of zoning districts that allow hobby or small -scale (non -cannabis) commercial agricultural uses in recognition that active farming operations when appropriately located and managed, are not inherently det rimental to surrounding properties and can be a benefit to the community.
IMPACT DISCUSSION
AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban land use. [Threshold AG-1]
Figure 5.2 -2 shows that the Planning Area contains areas designated as Prime Farmland south along Highway 273, South Bonnyview Road and the Sacramento River . The areas designated as Prime Farmland are zoned to allow non -agricultural use such as public and residential development. Therefore, development consistent with the General Plan could allow the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA, resulting in potential impacts. The proposed project’s Natural Resources Element includes Policy NR 12B which aim to encourage the incorporation of agricultural activities within new developments located on these soils and Policy NR12A, which encourages buffers for new development to minimize impacts of adjacent to active agricultural operations to reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. Policy NR12D addresses potential to allow small-scale farming. However, the designations of farmlands of concern under CEQA for non-agricultural uses in the General Plan land use map could lead to the conversion of such farmland to non-agricultural uses regardless of the listed polices.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact AG-1 would be potentially significant.
Packet Pg. 933
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-11
Mitigation Measures
The criterion for mitigation under CEQA is feasible mitigation that lessens a project's impacts. Agricultural conservation easements are a possible mitigation measure under CEQA. Programs that establish agricultural conservation easements and in -lieu fees for mitigation banking are most effective when determined concurrent with project approval . However, the effectiveness and extent of which future projects would opt-in to agricultural conservation easements as mitigation measure cannot be determined in this analysis, therefore this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact AG-1 would be significant and unavoidable.
AG-2: The proposed project would not require a zone change or general plan amendment and/or conflict with an existing Williamson contract nor would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)). [Threshold AG-2] [Threshold AG-3]
The proposed project does not require a zone change or general plan amendment and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use . The General Plan Update would continue to allow residential categories which allow for housing and permit agricultural uses. Furthermore, there are currently no Williamson Act contracts within the SOI. As such , the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or existing Williamson contract. Therefore, no impacts would occur .
There are no areas zoned as forestland in the City of Redding. The Redding Zoning Code and General Plan zone and designate Rural Lands (RL) and Open Space/Greenway , respectively, for agricultural and open spaces but does not specify forest or timberland. Forest and timber lands defined by the State include both land that is used for timber harvesting and other forested land that has aesthetic, recreational, and biological amenities. The General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forestland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, no impact would occur .
See Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this EIR in regard to consideration of aesthetics of trees as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact AG-2 would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Packet Pg. 934
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-12 FEBRUARY 2024
AG-3: The proposed project would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use [Threshold AG-4]
Government Code Section 51104(g) defines "Timber," "Timberland," and "Timberland Production Zone" for CEQA and "Timberland Preserve Zone" in city and county general plans. Timber refers to trees maintained for forest production purposes but does not include nursery stock. Timberland is land used for growing and harvesting timber, or for other uses, with an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre. Timberland Production Zone (TPZ) is an area zoned for growing and harvesting timb er or related uses and are commercially viable. There are no TPZ lands within the Planning Area of the City. As such, the General Plan Update can't impact them or result in conversion of forested areas to non-forested areas.
As mentioned, Table 5.2-2, Forestland Acreage in Redding SOI, there is Oak woodland within the City’s SOI however these trees do not have commercial use of the land but do have aesthetic value. The discussion of oak woodland can be found in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the EIR.
The General Plan Update could result in the conversion of oak woodlands and other upland habitats for future development. The proposed project would focus development primarily on infill sites and sites within the identified growth areas and would be excluded from areas classified as “Greenway”, zoned “OS” Open Space District, or contained within private open space easement (approximately 8,000 acres within the 2023 Redding City lim its). However, oak woodland areas outside of the Greenway classification are designated for residential and non-residential land uses. A portion of the Planning Area’s oak woodland and similar habitats occur within these non-Greenway areas and new development will result in disturbance of this resource.
Natural Resources Element Policy NR6A addresses preservation of native oaks, and Policy NR6B addresses efforts to establish areas for the replanting of native trees. The Redding Municipal Code Section 18.45.120, Tree Planting Requirements, includes requirements to plant trees based on building square footage, number of parking spaces provided in a project, and along public street frontages. Regardless, even applying a combination of these policies, the “Greenway” protections afforded by this General Plan and implementation of the tree management provisions of the Municipal Code, a certain amount of woodland habitat will be impacted by future development. Therefore, impacts to forestland under the proposed project would be potentially significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact AG-3 would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures. Although the goals and policies General Plan Update would help to minimize impacts to loss of woodland and other habitat types , and result in the planting of trees, the proposed project could potentially convert forested areas to non-forested uses to accommodate future demand. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Packet Pg. 935
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-13
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact AG-3 would be significant and unavoidable.
AG-4: The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. [Threshold AG-5]
Although farmland and agricultural uses are limited within the City Limits and identified growth areas of this General Plan, if development were to occur under the existing land use classifications, such lands would be converted to non-agricultural uses.
The General Plan Update includes goals, policies, actions, and regulations that reduce conflicts between agricultural operations and urban uses that could potentially result in farmland conversion such as Policy CDD7A, which requires to maintain well -defined community edges using open -space buffers, greenbelts, agricultural lands, stream courses, clustered development, and other appropriate types of landscape and design features. Policy NR12A addresses buffers for new development to minimize impacts of adjacent to active agricultural operations to reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. Establishment of buffers can help minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. Policy NR12B encourages new projects constructed on prime agricultural soils to provide opportunities for community gardens, food forests, etc. and Policy NR12D directs the City to explore amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to recognize existing, active farming operations.
Together, these goals, policies, and regulations would minimizechanges to the agricultural that would result in the conversion of farmlands or forest land of concern under CEQA to nonagricultural or non-forest uses, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impact AG-4 would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Impact AG-4 would be less than significant.
Packet Pg. 936
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-14 FEBRUARY 2024
5.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
AG-5 The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to agricultural and forestry resources.
Development under the General Plan Update would contribute to cumulative agricultural impacts. Although the General Plan Update goals, policies, and regulations would reduce and partially offset Redding’s contribution to these impacts, the overall cumulative agricultural impact would remain significant. Because the amount of growth foreseen in the region and the decisions of surrounding communitie s regarding conversion of agricultural land are outside the control of Redding, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AG-5 would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
There are no feasible mitigation measures.
Although the goals, policies, and regulations of the General Plan Update would reduce and partially offset regional agricultural impacts, the proposed project would contribute to cumulatively significant agricultural impacts in the region. The amount of gr owth foreseen in the region and the decisions of Shasta County where the vast majority of farmlands within the Planning Area are located regarding conversion of agricultural land are outside the control of the City of Redding. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: AG-5 would be significant and unavoidable.
Packet Pg. 937
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 5.2-15
5.2.5 REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023 (accessed). California Vegetation – WHR13 Types. https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/CALFIRE-Forestry::california-vegetation-whr13- types/about.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Stud y/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20William son%20Map%202016.pdf.
______. 2018. Farmland of Local Importance.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/Farmland_of_Local_Importance_2018.pdf. ______. 2023, January 11 (accessed). California Important Farmland Finder . https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
Redding, City of. 2018. Open Space Strategy.
https://www.cityofredding.org/home/showpublisheddocument/20000/636728655614000000.
Packet Pg. 938
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
5.2-16 FEBRUARY 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg. 939
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-1
5.3 AIR QUALITY
This section describes the potential impacts to air quality due to the implementation of the 2023-2045 General Plan Update. This section describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential air quality impacts, and identifies General Plan policies and feasible mitigation measures that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.
This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations. Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling is included in Appendix 5.3 -1, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data , of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Transportation -sector impacts are based on trip generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by GHD (see Chapter 5.16- 1, Transportation.
5.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
TERMINOLOGY
▪ AAQS. Ambient Air Quality Standards
▪ CES. CalEnviroScreen. CES is a mapping tool that helps identify the California communities most affected by sources of pollution and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. ▪ Concentrations. Refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air . Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). ▪ Criteria Air Pollutants. Those air pollutants specifically identified for control under the Federal Clean Air Act (currently seven—carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, sulfur oxides, ozone, and coarse and fine particulates).
▪ DPM. Diesel particulate matter .
▪ Emissions. Refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day or tons per year . ▪ ppm. Parts per million.
▪ Sensitive receptor . Land uses that are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. These land uses include residential, retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools.
▪ TAC. Toxic air contaminant.
▪ µg/m3. Micrograms per cubic meter .
▪ VMT. Vehicle miles traveled.
Packet Pg. 940
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-2 FEBRUARY 2024
AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO x), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants.
Of these, CO, SO 2, NO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that AAQ S have been established for them. VOC and NO X are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O 3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Table 5.3 -1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.
TABLE 5.3-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
▪ Chest pain in heart patients
▪ Headaches, nausea
▪ Reduced mental alertness
▪ Death at very high levels
▪ Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3) ▪ Cough, chest tightness
▪ Difficulty taking a deep breath
▪ Worsened asthma symptoms
▪ Lung inflammation
▪ Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
▪ Increased response to allergens
▪ Aggravation of respiratory illness
▪ Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate
Matter (PM10
and PM2.5)
▪ Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases
▪ Emergency room visits for asthma
▪ Premature death
▪ Cars and trucks (particularly diesels)
▪ Fireplaces and woodstoves
▪ Windblown dust from overlays, agriculture,
and construction
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
▪ Aggravation of respiratory disease (e.g., asthma
and emphysema)
▪ Reduced lung function
▪ Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) ▪ Behavioral and learning disabilities in children ▪ Nervous system impairment
▪ Contaminated soil
Sources: CARB 2022; South Coast AQMD 2005
Packet Pg. 941
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-3
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.
▪ Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (CARB 2023a). The Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB) is designated under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels (CARB 2022). ▪ Nitrogen Oxides (NO x) are a by -product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM 2.5. The two major forms of NO x are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NO 2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and is more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO 2 is only potentially irritating.
NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility.
NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including people with asthma, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma.
Also, studies show a connection between breathing elevated short -term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (USEPA 2023). The NSVAB is designated an attainment area for NO 2 under the National and California AAQS (CARB 2022).
▪ Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO 2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO 2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short -term exposures to SO 2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing.) At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at -risk populations including Packet Pg. 942
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-4 FEBRUARY 2024
children, the elderly, and asthmatics (USEPA 2023) The NSVAB is designated attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2022).
▪ Suspended Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM 10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM 2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or
0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PM 10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. EPA scientific review concluded that PM 2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM 10 to contribute to health effects and at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM 10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). The Shasta County portion of the NSVAB is in attainment for PM10 and PM2.5 under the California AAQS (CARB 2022).
▪ Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when VOCs and NOx, both by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O 3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O 3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In particular, O 3 harms sensitive vegetation, including forest trees and plants during the growing season (EPA 2023).
The SJVAB is designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and designated attainment under the National AAQS (CARB 2022).
▪ Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds composed primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of VOCs. Other sources of VOCs include evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. There are no ambient air quality standards established for VOCs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O 3, the Shasta County Air Quality Management District has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Packet Pg. 943
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-5
▪ Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently t he primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead -acid battery manufacturers. The NSVAB is designated in attainment of the California and National AAQS for lead (CARB 2022).
Toxic Air Contaminants
People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2020). By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. There are no air quality standards for TACs. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most relevant to the proposed project being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter . Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. Long-term (chronic) inhalation of DPM is likely a lung cancer risk. Short-term (i.e., acute) exposure can cause irritation and inflammatory symptoms and may exacerbate existing allergies and asthma symptoms (USEPA 2002).
Placement of New Sensitive Receptors
Because placement of sensitive land uses falls outside CARB’s jurisdiction, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome - plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources.
CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses identified in Table 5.3-2, CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses , were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources.
Packet Pg. 944
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-6 FEBRUARY 2024
TABLE 5.3-2 CARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and
High-Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.
Ports Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Source: CARB 2005
The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks and benzene and 1,3 - butadiene from passenger vehicles.
In 2017, CARB provided a supplemental technical advisory to the handbook for near -roadway air pollution exposure, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High -Volume Roadways. Strategies include practices and technologies that reduce traffic emissions, increase dispersion of traffic pollution (or the dilution of pollution in the air), or remove pollution from the air (CARB 2017).
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
AAQS have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of TACs. Land uses in Redding are subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the Shasta County AQMD, the California AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and National AAQS adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially appl icable to the proposed project are summarized in this section.
Packet Pg. 945
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-7
Federal and State Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CCA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several pr ovisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more stringent standards or include other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act, signed in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS.
The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health -based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 5.3-3, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.
Packet Pg. 946
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-8 FEBRUARY 2024
TABLE 5.3-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) c
1 hour 0.09 ppm *
Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents.
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20.0 ppm 35.0 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline- powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable
Particulate
Matte
(PM10) d
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20.0 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50.0 µg/m3 150.0 µg/m3 Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5 )
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12.0 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35.0 µg/m3 Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing
& recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of
leaded gasoline.
Calendar
Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) e 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hours
ExCof
=0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid
cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid.
These particles vary greatly in shape, size, and
chemical composition, and can be made up of many
different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Packet Pg. 947
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-9
TABLE 5.3-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur-containing organic
substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and
some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of
geothermal energy exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydro-
carbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor.
Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has
been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and
hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of
chlorinated solvents.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. a. California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. d. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
e. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual arithmetic mean standards were revoked.
Source: CARB 2016
California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions. ▪ AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards. Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025.
▪ Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation. The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay - verified technologies. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry -van and refrigerated -van trailers, and owners of the heavy -duty tractors that pull them on California highways. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affe cted vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low-rolling-resistance tires. Sleeper-cab tractors Packet Pg. 948
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-10 FEBRUARY 2024
model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay-verified low-rolling-resistance tires. This rule has criteria air pollutant co-benefits. ▪ SB 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards . A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under this standard, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010.
▪ California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards . The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR secs. 1601–1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non– federally regulated appliances. This code reduces natural gas use from appliances. ▪ 24 CCR, Part 6: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards . Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977. This code reduces natural gas use from buildings.
▪ 24 CCR, Part 11: Green Building Standards Code . Establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. This code reduces natural gas use from buildings.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spot Information and Assessment Act Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to them. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health” (17 CCR sec. 93000). A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code sec. 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act set up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that e mit that TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate “toxics best available control Packet Pg. 949
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-11
technology” to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.
Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High-priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings.
CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
▪ 13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485.: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling . Generally restricts on -road diesel -powered commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling more than five minutes. ▪ 13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2480: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools. Generally restricts a school bus or transit bus from idling for more than five minutes when within 100 feet of a school.
▪ 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate . Regulations established to control emissions associated with diesel-powered TRUs.
Local and Regional Regulations
Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD has the responsibility of enforcing federal and State air quality regulations in Shasta County.
The SCAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs, and it regulates agricult ural burning. All projects in Shasta County are subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Descriptions of specific rules applicable to the proposed project may include, but are not limited to:
▪ SCAQMD Rule 2:1, New Source Review, establishes pre-construction review requirements for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution for use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), analysis of air quality impacts, and to ensure that the operation of such sources does not inte rfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. The regulation provides for no net increase in emissions from new or modified stationary sources that emit, or have the potential to emit, 25 tons per year or more of any non-attainment pollutant or its precursors. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 2:1A, Permits Required , specifies requirements to obtain an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate for uses that may cause the issuance of air contaminants.
Packet Pg. 950
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-12 FEBRUARY 2024
▪ SCAQMD Rule 2:6, Open Burning: General Provisions , states that burning in the City of Shasta Lake is allowed from November 1 to April 30 when the fire is ignited between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM; fires must be completely out by 5:00 PM. This rule also discusses permit requirements for open outdoor burning.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 2:7, Conditions of Open Burning , includes measures to minimize smoke from open burning.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:15, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt, includes regulations to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the use, manufacture, or sale of cutback and emulsified asphalt in paving, construction, or maintenance of parking lots, streets, and highways. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:16, Fugitive, Indirect, or Non -Traditional Sources, includes measures to minimize the emission of fugitive dust during earth -moving, construction, demolition, bulk storage, and other activities that could result in wind erosion. This rule identifies Reasonably Available Control Measures (RAMC) that could b e considered to prevent or reduce the emission and transport of fugitive dust (applying dust suppressants, using fences, barriers, and/or wind breaks/screens, revegetating disturbed surfaces, cleaning paved streets, improving road surfaces, and/or controlling vehicular speeds in unpaved areas.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:23, Fireplace and Solid Fuel Heating Device Usage, establishes emissions limits for woodstoves, pellet stoves, and fireplaces.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:24, Transportation Control Measure (TCM), includes requirements for significant trip generators (a facility that has 100 or more persons scheduled to arrive at one site between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM Monday through Friday). The purpose of this rule is to improve air quality, minimize t raffic congestion, and encourage ridesharing and other methods to reduce vehicle trips through public education and requiring annual trip reduction reports from significant trip generators. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:31, Architectural Coatings, establishes VOC content limits for architectural coatings that are supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the County.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 3:32, Adhesives and Sealants, limits the emissions of VOCs from adhesives and sealants and associated primers, and from related surface preparation solvents, cleanup solvents, and strippers.
Indirect Emission Sources Thresholds
SCAQMD c oordinates with the planning agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project to apply standard mitigation measures (SMMs) and best available mitigation measures (BAMMs) to the project as listed in the respective Air Quality Elements (or equivalent). SMMs are applied to all projects, while the list of BAMMs found in the respective Air Quality Element (or equivalent) are reviewed by the planning agency staff for consideration of specific project applicability at two distinct indirect emission thresholds, as shown in Table 5.3-4, Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants of Concern.
Packet Pg. 951
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-13
TABLE 5.3-4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Threshold ROG NOX PM10
Level A 25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 80 lbs/day
Level B 137 lbs/day 137 lbs/day 137 lbs/day
Source: SCAQMD 2003
If the project’s indirect and area wide emissions are greater than the Level A thresholds but less than Level B thresholds, appropriate Level A mitigation as listed in the jurisdiction’s Air Quality Element (or equivalent) to the General Plan should be implemented by the project applicant. If the project’s indirect and area wide emissions remain above the Level B threshold of 137 pounds per day (25 Tons per year) after applying all feasible mitigation measures, the project is considered to have a significant impac t from an air quality perspective and an EIR is appropriate for the project.
Air Quality Attainment Plans
Northern Sacramento Valley Air Quality Attainment Plan
The City of Redding is located at the northern end of the NSVAB. In 1994, the air districts in the NSVAB, which includes the S hasta County Air Quality Management District (S CAQMD), prepared an air quality attainment plan for ozone. Updated every three years since adoption, the current 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan includes forecast reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions (ozone precursors) for the entire NSVAB through the year 2025.
The 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan provides local guidance for air basins to achieve attainment of ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas; areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas for which there is insufficient data are designated unclassified. The attainment status for the Shasta County portion of the NSVAB is in Table 5.3-5, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for Shas ta County. Shasta County is nonattainment for ozone standards (CARB 2023a).
TABLE 5.3-5 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT STATUS FOR SHASTA COUNTY Pollutant Federal State
8-Hour Ozone (O3) Unclassified/attainment Nonattainment Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassified/attainment Attainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Unclassified/attainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/attainment Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified/attainment Attainment Source: CARB 2023a
Packet Pg. 952
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-14 FEBRUARY 2024
Redding Municipal Code
Section 6.12.210, Odor Control
Section 6.12.210, Odor Control, of Chapter 6.12, Cannabis, of the Redding Municipal Code requires that all cannabis businesses shall install a ventilation and filtration system to prevent all odors generated from the cannabis business from escaping from the buildings on site, such that the odor cannot be detected outside of the building(s). The ventilation and filtration system must be approved by the building official and installed prior to commencing operations.
Chapter 16.12, Clearing Grading, Fills, and Excavation
Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code establishes minimum requirements for grading, clearing, and erosion and sediment control. The chapter requires issuance of a grading permit prior to any clearing or grading on privately owned land that is larger than one acre in size. Both an interim and a final erosion and sediment control plan are required as part of the grading permit process and must be prepared by a licensed professional and approved by the City Engineer . The plans must address the potential for soil erosion due to stormwater runoff and wind and include best management practices designed to ensure sediment does not leave the construction site. The City is responsible for inspection of construction sites to ensure compliance with provisions of the grading permit.
Section 18.34.030, Permit Requirements for New Development Section 18.34.030 (B) of the Municipal Code addresses requirements for industrial uses and states that industrial or manufacturing uses which may be objectionable by reason of producing offensive odor, dust, noise, bright lights, vibration, project scale, or traffic volumes or involving the storage or use of explosives or other dangerous materials may be denied a site development permit.
Section 18.40.110, Performance Standards – Citywide
Section 18.40.110 (C), Performance Standards-Citywide, Odors, of the Municipal Code states that no use, process or activity shall produce objectionable odors detectable by a reasonable person that are perceptible without instruments at the property lines of an "R" district.
Chapter 18.46, Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, Sites and Parcels Chapter 18.46, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Sites and Parcels, of the Municipal Code, which addresses existing land uses in the City that present conflicts with conforming land uses under the zoning code, states that no nonconforming use that involves the storage, use or generation of hazardous materials, presses, products, or wastes or other activity that may be detrimental to public health or safety because of the potential to generate dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, vibration, or other conditions that would be incompatible with surrounding uses may be substituted for an existing nonconforming use even if the use is of the same or less intensive nature.
Packet Pg. 953
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 5.3-15
City of Redding 2000-2020 General Plan
Goals and Policies
The existing General Plan Air Quality Element contains the following goals and policies that address air quality:
▪ Goal 1 : Effective communication, cooperation, and coordination in developing and implementing community and regional air quality programs. o Policy 1 Air Quality Analysis : The City will require an air quality impact analysis using the recommended methods promulgated by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for all projects that are subject to CEQA review and which exceed emissions thresholds established by the AQMD.
o Policy 2 Report on Cumulative Air Quality Impacts : The City Department of Planning and Community Development will submit a report to the Planning Commission for approval which identifies the cumulative transportation and air quality impacts of all General Plan amendments approved during the previous year in the Annual General Plan Status Report.
o Policy 3 Tracking Program for Cumulative Air Quality Impacts: The City will establish an information program for decision makers that tracks the cumulative emissions of all approved projects so there is a relative understanding of the impacts of small and large projects as well as proposed projects.
o Policy 4 Uniform Air Quality Assessment Guidelines : The City will support the development, refinement, and use of uniform air quality impact-assessment guidelines that will provide standard criteria for determining significant environmental effects, that will provide a uniform method of calculating project emissions, and that will provide standard mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts. o Policy 5 Uniform Countywide Air Quality Programs: The City will coordinate with other jurisdictions in the County to establish parallel air quality programs, application of CEQA, and implementation measures (trip -reduction ordinances, wood stove ordinance, and indirect source programs, etc.).
o Policy 6 Review Projects in Other Jurisdictions : The City will notify and request comments from neighboring cities and the County and affected agencies during review of General Plan amendments involving two acres or more and other significant discretionary projects which may affect the adjoining jurisdiction. o Policy 7 Comprehensive Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Planning : The City will continue to integrate land use, transportation, and air quality planning to make the most efficient use of public resources and to carry out the policies and goals of this element.
Packet Pg. 954
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)
R E D D I N G G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E D R A F T E I R
C I T Y O F R E D D I N G
AIR QUALITY
5.3-16 FEBRUARY 2024
o Policy 8 Regional and Local Plan Consistency : All City submittal of projects to be included in regional transportation plans (Regional Transportation Improvement Plan [RTIP], County's Congestion Management Plan [CMP], etc.) should be consistent with the goals and policies of this General Plan Element.
o Policy 9 Transit Planning: The City should consult with transit providers to determine project impacts on long-range transit plans and ensure that impacts are mitigated. o Policy 10 Consolidation of Transit Services : The City should continue to support the upgrading and consolidation of transit services within the metropolitan area to maximize the efficiency of transit services while minimizing the costs of transit services.
This policy would also apply to small transit providers serving special groups like seniors.
Consolidating these services c an increase ridership per vehicle and reduce miles traveled.
o Policy 11 Transit and Affordable Housing : The City should work with the Housing Authority, transit providers, and developers to accommodate the construction of low- income housing developments that use transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented design principles.
o Policy 12 Air Quality Education : The City should support and participate in the air quality education programs of the AQMD. The City should assist in educating developers and the public on the benefits of pedestrian and transit -friendly development.
o Policy 13 New Transportation Technology: The City should anticipate new technology in transportation so that opportunities are not foreclosed by relying on old technology. o Policy 14 Trip-Reduction Programs: The City will, as much as possible, take the lead in implementing innovative employer -based, trip reduction programs by ensuring that employment contracts negotiated with unions are flexible and allow workers to participate in programs that reduce commute trips.
o Policy 15 Replacement of Conventional Fuel Vehicles: The City should adopt a schedule to replace or convert conventional fuel vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles as rapidly as feasible based on available funds.
o Policy 16 Teleconferencing and Telework Centers : The City should support the development of a teleconference center for the community and small telecommunication work centers in new development. This can be accomplished by working with the telephone company and other interested public and private agencies, developers, and hotel operators in developing a multi-user teleconferencing center and small telework centers.
▪ Goal 2: Reduce motor vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and increase average vehicle ridership.
o Policy 17 Transit and Pedestrian -Oriented Design Guidelines : The City shall make air quality and mobility prime considerations when reviewing any proposed change to the land-use pattern. Such consideration shall include, as much as possible, increased Packet Pg. 955
Attachment: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)