Agenda packet — Redding City Council, March 26, 2024 (part 1 of 7)

REDDING CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Civic Center Council Chambers
777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2024, 5:30 P.M.

NOTICE AND AGENDA

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Redding City Council i s hereby called by the undersigned and under the authority vested in her by Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California. The meeting is to take place at the date, time, and location listed above.

This meeting will include teleconferen ce participation by Council Member Michael Dacquisto (Government Code Section 54953). In addition to the meeting location above, members of the public may participate in the meeting from the following teleconference location:

Hacienda Encantada Resort & Residences Lobby
Carreterra Transpeninsular km 7.3 A-4
Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico 23410

Business to be transacted at said meeting, and the only business to be transacted is as follows:

1. See Attached Agenda

_______________________
Tenessa Audette, Mayor

Dated: March 21, 2024

Redding City Council March 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

Agenda
Special Meeting
Redding City Council
Council Chambers (Doors open 30 minutes prior)
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA

March 26, 2024
5:30 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR TENESSA AUDETTE

A. Roll Call

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS, PETITIONS, AND PROTESTS

A court challenge to action taken by the City Council on any project or decision may be limited to only those issues raised during the public hearin g or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council during, or prior to, the public hearing.

If anyone wishes to address the City Council on any item considere d at this meeting before or during Council’s consideration of that item, please fill out a blue Speaker Request Form, located in the lighted alcoves at the back of the Council Chambers, and submit it to the City Clerk. The City Council will allocate up to a maximum of three minutes per speaker for each agenda item. Staff reports are available on-line at the City’s web site at www.cityofredding.gov or in the Public View binder located on the podium at the north side of the Chambers.

PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES. THANK YOU.

Redding City Council March 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

2.1. Public Hearing to consider adoption of two resolutions regarding the comprehensive update of the City of Redding General Plan 2045 and Final Environmental Impact Report.

Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion:
(1) Adopt Resolution: (a) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ; (b) approving and adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and (c) approving and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
(2) Adopt Resolution approving the City of Redding General Plan 2045 and repealing the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan.

3. ADJOURNMENT

Pursuant to the Brown Act, non -confidential materi als related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for inspection during normal business hours at the Office of the City Clerk, 3 rd Floor, City Hall, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California.

City Council Meetings will be televised live on Shasta Community Access Channels via Charter/Spectrum Cable channel 181 , and will be rerun on Thursday at 12:30 p.m. during the week in which the meeting is held. Additionally, the meet ing can be viewed online at the following: https://www.shastaartscouncil.org/scactv. Video of the City Council meetings can also be viewed on the City’s web site at http://www.cityofredding.gov/. Open the Services tab, and select City Council Videos.

In compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Redding will make available to persons with disabilities modifications or accommodations including auxiliary aids or services necessary to participate in public meetings. A person needing assistance should contact the Redding City Clerk by telephone at (530) 225 -4447 or in person, or by mail at 777 Cypress Avenue, 3 rd Floor, Redding, California 96001 at least th ree (3) working days in advance.

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

Questions, complaints, or requests for accommodations or additional information may be forwarded to the ADA & Title VI Coordinator at 777 Cypress Avenue, Attn: Personnel Dept., Redding, California 96001, Phone (530) 225-4065.

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

Recommendation

Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion:
(1) Adopt Resolution: (a) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ; (b) approving and adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ; and (c) approving and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and (2) Adopt Resolution approving the City of Redding General Plan 2045 and repealing the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan.

Fiscal Impact

There is no direct impact to the General Fund resulting from adoption of General Plan 2045.

Alternative Action

Final E nvironmental Impact Report: The City Council (Council) could determine that the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) does not adequ ately address the potential impacts of the project and refer the document, with specific concerns delineated, back to staff for further analysis. Depending on scope, the Draft EIR may have to be recirculated for an additional 45-day period, the Final EIR amended and republished, and additional public hearings scheduled to obtain a recommendation on the revised documents from the Planning Commission. This process would require further amendment to the City’s contract with the EIR consultant, PlaceWorks.

General Plan 2045 : The Council could determine that it desires one or more policy/exhibit changes to the document. Depending on the scope of amendments, further consideration by the Planning Commission may be required prior to adoption by the Council.

MEETING DATE: March 26, 2024
ITEM NO. 2.1
FROM:

***APPROVED BY***

[email protected]

[email protected]
SUBJECT: 2.1--Public Hearing to consider adoption of two resolutions regarding the comprehensive update of the City of Redding General Plan 2045 and Final Environmental Impact Report.

Jeremy Pagan, Development
Services Director/Bldg
Official
Packet Pg. 4
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 2

Background and Analysis

General Plan

The existing General Plan was adopted in 2000. Various Elements were updated in 2008 to respond to changes to state law and to determine if the underlying guidance of the existing plan was sound. Numerous changes to the re quirements of local general plans have been instituted by the state since that time, not the least of which are related to wildfire safety and environmental justice. Additionally, after 20 -plus years, it is appropriate to engage the community in shaping policies that will prepare the City for development that will occur over the next 20 years or more.

Also, adopting a fresh California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) document to address changes in local conditions and to bring it up to date so that it can be used as a basis for environmental review/General Plan consistency determinations of development projects moving forward is appropriate.

Note that the draft General Plan 2045 (Plan) does not include amendments to the land use classifications of proper ties shown on the General Plan Diagram within the proposed Planning Area. Neither does it amend the Housing Element that has been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the period 2000 -2028. These items will be readopted with the Plan.

For sake of brevity for this staff report, the Council is directed to the attached staff report for the February 27, 2024 , Planning Commission meeting, along with its attached exhibits which provide additional background on the draft Plan. This includes discussions of:

• General Plan basics;

• Project initiation;
• Update process/community involvement;
• Policy direction;
• Proposed Planning Area boundary;
• Issues (based on correspondence received related to the Final EIR and draft Plan); and • Correspondence/Comments (Note that, at the time of publishing of this staff report, the Council has been forwarded all comments received on both the draft Plan and its environmental impact report to date).

Final Environmental Impact Report

The Final EIR consists of the following components:

• Response to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR);

• Changes made to the Draft EIR based on comments received, and necessary corrections to text, data, and or map exhibits; and

• An addendum that includes the revised Draft EIR with the updated policies and map exhibits depicting the recommended Planning Area boundary.

Packet Pg. 5
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 3

Regarding comments received, it should be noted that it is difficult to determine/separate comments made on t he draft Plan versus its EIR. Comments typically address policies that are included in both documents and often staff could not readily distinguish which document was being referred to unless the correspondence clearly identified the document. As such, not every comment received was addressed as pertaining to the Draft EIR and responded to in the Final EIR.

Planning Commission Consideration

At its meeting of February 27, 2024, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a duly - noticed public hearing to take comments on the draft Plan and its associated Final EIR, although a public hearing on the Final EIR is not required by CEQA. This followed nine public workshops held by the Commission that began in March 2023 to review each Element of the draft Plan in order to address public and Commission concerns. Additionally, staff met with each Commissioner in an effort to better understand their concerns and to ensure the draft Plan met their expectations. This effort culminated in the Commission’s final public wo rkshop on November 10, 2023 , where staff was of the opinion that the final comments and concerns of individual Commissioners had either been satisfactorily addressed or by informal polling of the Commissioners were considered resolved. Of course, several Commissioners still expressed their individual concerns over several policy issues, but as a body the Commission appeared ready to move forward to the required public hearings.

After close of the public hearing, the Commission took the following actions:

General Plan
• Recommended several corrections/additions be made to the draft Plan related to the Noise Element, railroad safety, definitions of “special status species,” and several text additions and corrections. (Vote: Approve: 7; Deny: 0). These changes have been incorporated into the draft Plan, are minor in nature and do not impact the analyses and determinations of the Draft EIR;

• Recommended that the proposed Planning Area Boundary proposed by staff not be modified to add an additional property in th e vicinity of the Tierra Oaks development. (Vote: Approve : 4; Deny: 2; one recusal.) Again, the Council is directed to the February 27, 2024 , staff report and its attachments for more information regarding this matter; and

• Mixed recommendation that the Ci ty Council adopt the Plan. (Vote: Approve: 3; Deny: 3; one recusal.)

Final EIR
• Recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR (Vote: Approve: 6; Deny: 0; one recusal.).

Packet Pg. 6
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 4

Issues

As noted above, it is often difficult to separate comments made on the draft Plan and its EIR because of the considerable overlap between the documents. Given this conundrum, the following issues do not necessarily differentiate between the draft Plan and the Final EIR, including those provided by the Shasta Envir onmental Alliance and the Shasta Birding Society and others.

The principal comments received during the Planning Commission’s public hearing process were consistent with the written comments received on the draft Plan and the Final EIR. These include the following:

Policy Direction: The initial draft Plan (on which the Draft EIR was based) almost exclusively used aspirational policy language at the recommendation of the City Attorney. The vast majority of public comments objected to that approach to polic y development. In response, over 100 policies of the draft Plan were amended to be more directive. However, staff also included the following caveat in the Plan’s Introduction chapter to address the concerns of the City Attorney:

“The General Plan, by its very nature, is a long -term policy document and its implementation will be influenced by a number of unforeseeable future circumstances. These include, but are not limited to, available funding, staff levels, changes in state and federal regulations/manda tes, technological innovation, environmental changes, changes in the local and regional economy, illegal activities beyond the control of the City, lack of partnership organizations, and development constraints of future individual projects that cannot be anticipated in this document. Implementation of the policy direction of this General Plan will be affected, in part, by these uncertainties which will occur throughout the life of the General Plan. As such, terms used in this document such as “require,” “shall,” “prohibit,” “protect,” and similar words are not intended, for purposes of policy implementation or general plan consistency determinations, to provide absolute certainty, direction, urgency, or otherwise dictate precise and immediate actions. They are intended to provide strong guidance to City staff, Commissions, City Council, community members and the development community in the course of day -to-day implementation of the General Plan’s policies.” (Emphasis added.)

Many comments received on the d raft Plan, including from several Planning Commissioners, suggest that too few policies provide specific, mandatory, and enforceable direction, particularly as relates to habitat, tree preservation, and addressing climate change. The broad process of devel oping policies is addressed below. In staff’s opinion, strong guidance on use of the draft Plan’s policies is provided in the concluding sentence of the above paragraph.

There is no single approach to prepare policy language that is universally adopted b y the state and local agencies. For instance, the state’s own General Plan Guidelines suggest that all policies should provide specific direction by using such words as “shall ,” “must,” “adopt,” etc. However, policy examples included in the Guidelines do n ot necessarily meet this test, and instead use words such as “encourage,” “endeavor,” etc.

Packet Pg. 7
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 5

General plan practitioners and local agency legal staff often recommend that “softer” policy language be used for the following reasons:

• General plans are long -term documents that are, by definition, general, because the future cannot be predicted with certainty;

• Maintaining flexibility to interpret and implement policies is critical because the specific types of development proposals, local conditions, etc., cann ot be known at the time the general plan is adopted; and

• Overly-directive policy language leaves the local jurisdiction more prone to legal challenges, whether well founded or not, as it undertakes implementation of the plan.

Clearly, the type of policy directive used is up to each jurisdiction to determine what is appropriate. Stronger, declarative policy language is provided in the draft Plan in those instances where:

• The City is already undertaking the activity through its construction standards, development codes, and other mechanisms; and

• The direction is consistent and required by federal and state environmental and other laws, City Council policy direction, and existing practices.

Less direct, “softer” policy language is used in the following types of instances:

• The City lacks legal jurisdiction. Policy NR4B provides an example. This policy directs the City to prioritize the preservation and enhancement of the Sacramento River and tributary streams. This verb was used in recognition that the City does not control what occurs within the banks of these watercourses, which are under the jurisdiction of federal and state agencies and subject to their permitting requirements. The City can, however, place a high priority on working with these agencies to conduct enhancement activities such as construction of side/rearing channels along the river, for example. The City also can prioritize its efforts to ensure that activities under its control, such as preventing project and municipal/urban runoff, sp onsoring community -wide stream cleanup activities, and enforcing the stream corridor development buffer requirements are continued. Actions such as these serve to protect these valuable resources to the extent possible in accordance with City jurisdiction. Various commenters have asked that this policy (and similar policies) be revised to provide such direction as “Ensure the preservation and enhancement of the fisheries of the Sacramento River….” While staff shares this sentiment, it is also recognized the re are legal and practical limitations for the City in this regard; and

• The policy might be seen as committing the City to undertake a long range and expensive effort to develop and implement a program, such as a climate action plan. Efforts such as these , from staff’s perspective, are more appropriately Packet Pg. 8
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 6

addressed during the Council’s priority setting workshops as part of the budgetary and staff resource allocation process.

What appears to elude many commenters is the very direct language of the various “Goals” contained in the document, particularly the Natural Resources Element. The goals use terms such as “protect” and “preserve” without qualifiers. These goals establish the desired long -term outcome by the City. The policies are intended to provide st rong guidance to City staff, Commissions, City Council, community members and the development community in the course of day-to-day implementation of the General Plan necessary to achieve its stated goals.

Programmatic EIR

Because various policies of th e draft Natural Resources and Parks, Trails and Recreation Elements are not declarative, the Shasta Birding Society, in particular, suggests the value in using the EIR as a programmatic document to assess future development proposal’s consistency with the General Plan is problematic. Staff does not concur. The Council should note that as a programmatic document, the Final EIR relies on the development review process to evaluate impacts to biological resources. Policies in the General Plan provide overall gu idance regarding the resource to the property owner and decision makers. However, the actual physical impacts of a project will be evaluated at the time of project application and consideration. This is essential because biological resources and protection mechanisms can change over time and the analysis in the Final EIR for the General Plan considers impacts over at least 20 years. The use of declarative polices is not appropriate in all circumstances. For instance, the City does not have jurisdiction over wetlands, endangered species and similar resources , and must work in coordination with resource agencies on the best way to conserve, protect, and where necessary, mitigate impacts to the resource. Making the policy statements more directive than supportive ignores the reality of balancing property rights and the needs of the community against a resource on an individual site.

The goals and policies as written clearly indicate the City’s intent to preserve natural resources, but also provide flexibility to evaluate projects in coordination with the resource agencies. It is important to note that the City does not have jurisdiction over most of the natural resources along the river. Property owners can obtain permits directly from resource agencies to modi fy or remove vegetation, wetlands, riparian areas, etc., with no City approvals required if there is no development project proposed. Other than wording choice, the comments raise no additional feasible mitigation and it is staff’s opinion that the policy direction is appropriate.

Stream Corridor Buffers

A number of comments were received regarding the adequacy and intent of the stream corridor buffers, particularly related to the Sacramento River, shown on Figure NR -1 within the Redding Riverfront Specif ic Plan area. The development setbacks or “buffer” areas along the Sacramento River and its tributary streams were established with the 2000-2020 General Plan in consultation with the state Department of Fish and Game (currently Department of Fish and Wild life). They have not been modified since that time. The comment that no analysis of this buffer area is provided in the Final EIR fails to recognize that the buffer areas are not new, that significant development already exists along the Sacramento River, and that development along the Sacramento River within the Packet Pg. 9
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 7

Redding Riverfront Specific Plan area is subject to the existing Specific Plan and its EIR until such time as those documents are repealed or replaced. If the buffer area is modified by an update o f the Redding Riverfront Specific Plan, the General Plan exhibit and any related policy language will be amended accordingly.

Secondary Growth Area

Several residents expressed concerns at the February 27, 2024 , Planning Commission hearing regarding poten tial future development in the northwest section of the proposed Planning Area, in the vicinity of Quartz Hill Road. The residents noted that this area is within the Very High Fire Severity Zone and secondary access is limited. A portion of the area, currently outside the City Limits, is designated as a ‘Secondary Growth Area” in the draft Plan (Note that policies of the Plan preclude annexation of properties within this growth area unless it is demonstrated that the vacant land supply for single family residential development in the City drops to below a 10 -year projected need.). Including this area within the Secondary Growth Area boundary acknowledges that the City currently serves domestic water to the area and if the planned Buenaventura Boulevard crossing of the Sacramento River is constructed, additional secondary access will be available. Also, any future development would need to meet the heightened wildfire requirements for secondary access, the development and building construction requirements of the draft Plan, the City’s development codes, and the California Building Code. Staff also noted that Shasta County continues to allow “ranchette” style subdivision development to occur in the area, which may foreclose options for future annexation. Future updates of the draft Plan can address this issue when there is more certainty regarding the extension of Buenaventura Boulevard across the Sacramento River. The rural -style development pattern can also be evaluated at that time as well to determine if the Secondary Growth Area designation is still viable.

The following addresses unique comments received between the February 27, 2024 , Planning Commission meeting and March 11, 2024 , when this report was being prepared. Comments that have been previously add ressed in the Final EIR and at the Planning Commission’s numerous meetings are not addressed below. Comments received that are clearly redundant are not addressed separately.

The following paraphrases the comments received and provides a staff response:

Comment: The “Primary Growth Area” located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Quartz Hill Road and Keswick Dam Road should be eliminated since it is located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and additional housing would create an adverse impact by adding flammable materials to the area. The commenter asked for more information about designating this area as a Primary Growth Area;

Response: The approximately 10 -acre site is classified as “Shopping Center” on the General Plan Diagram. The classification and its growth area designation were adopted with the 2000 -2020 General Plan to recognize that if this area of the City were to experience significant residential growth in the future, it would be desirable to accommodate neighborhood servi ces in closer proximity to neighborhoods. Further, the property is within the Lake Keswick Sewer Assessment District and the Quartz Hill Water Assessment District, suggesting the availability of public utilities. Note that the subject properties are not wi thin the City of Redding, and annexation and development Packet Pg. 10
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 8

consistent with City’s standards, including wildland fire protection, would be required for construction of a commercial center at this location. Staff believes the existing designations are appropriate given the long-term nature of a general plan.

All comments received on both the draft Plan and its environmental impact report have been forwarded to the Council. Additional comments received after March 11, 2024 , will be provided and responses prep ared for Council consideration at the March 26, 2024 , City Council public hearing, as appropriate. Given the redundant nature of many of the comments received, staff will provide responses to those commenters whose issues have not been previously addressed.

Findings

While adoption of a general plan is a legislative act and no findings are required, CEQA findings for the Final EIR must be made and a “statement of overriding considerations” adopted by the City Council for those environmental impacts that re main significant and unavoidable after applying appropriate mitigation measures. These documents are attached to this report.

Environmental Review

As discussed previously, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed General Plan Update.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals

• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” • Government of the 21 st Century – “Be relevant and pr oactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain curre nt businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”

Note on the Format of the Adopted General Plan 2045

Once the Plan is adopted by the Council, the format will be updated to incorporate its map exhibits adjacent to relevant p olicies and to insert graphics, photographs, and similar items that will serve to illustrate many of the development concepts envisioned by the Plan. Changes to adopted maps, text, or policies will not be made except as may be desirable to correct grammatical, spelling, and/or similar errors.

Attachments
^Resolution: Final Environmental Impact Report
^Resolution: General Plan 2045
^Policy Direction of Draft General Plan 2045
^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations ^Mitigation Monitoring Program
^Public Comments: Received Feb 27 - Mar 11, 2024
^Planning Commission Staff Report: Feb 27, 2024
Planning Commission Staff Report February 27, 2024 Attachments General Plan 2045
Packet Pg. 11
Report to Redding City Council March 21, 2024
Re: 2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding Page 9

General Plan Diagram Exhibit
Final Environmental Impact Report
Packet Pg. 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN 2024

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan on October 3, 2000; and

WHEREAS, the City Council determined that it was necessary and desirable to comprehensively update various elements of the General Plan to address current statutory requirements and to ensure local relevancy; and

WHEREAS, the 2000 -2020 General Plan Housing Element has been certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development for the period 2000-2028, and no revisions are made to that Element which will be incorporated into General Plan 2045; and

WHEREAS, an addendum to the 2000 -2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the 2000-2028 Housing Element and, as such, it need not be addressed in the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, no land use changes to the General Plan Diagram are proposed within the reduced Planning Area of General Plan 2045; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the “lead agency” for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Actions; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 8, 2023, prior to the end of the Draft EIR public review period, did conduct a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Redding Municipal Code, to solicit comments from agencies and the general public regarding topics of concern to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 27, 2024, did conduct a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Redding Municipal Code, and heard and considered all factors relating to the Final EIR dated February 2024, including the staff report, the comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR from persons, organ izations and public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR, the responses of the City, as lead agency, to significant points raised in the review and consultation process concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Final EIR and affirmatively recommended adoption of said Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, modifications made to the proposed updates to draft General Plan 2045 subsequent to publication of the Draft EIR were minor in nature and do not introduce the potential for additional environmental impacts not already addressed; and
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: ^Resolution: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) WHEREAS, the City Council on March 26, 2024, did conduct a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Redding Municipal Code, to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, and heard and considered all factors relating to the Final EIR, including the staff report, the comments and recommendations received on the Draf t EIR from persons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR, the responses of the City, as lead agency, to significant points raised in the review and consultation process concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR and found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and

WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes certain written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, 15093, and 15097, the City of Redding has prepared Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and

WHEREAS, Section 2.0 of Project’s Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Review and Public Participation), documents that the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR were prepared, noticed, distributed, and published in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in making its determination on this Project as necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City of Redding, has analyzed the information submitted by staff and considered any written and oral comments received at the public hearing, including all factors relating to the Project, and has determined that any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by specific economic, legal, social, or other benefits of the Project;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Redding, in its independent judgment, hereby finds that:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.

SECTION 2. The Final EIR provides good-faith disclosure of available information on the Project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto.

SECTION 3. The information provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the Project and in the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project, do not constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: ^Resolution: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have been duly observed in conjunction with said hearing and the considerations of this matter and all of the previous proceedings related thereto.

SECTION 5. The City Council finds and determines that (a) the Final EIR is complete and adequate in scope and has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for implementation thereof, (b) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the City Council has fully reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project, (c) the Final EIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, and, based on substantial evidence in the record therefore, the Final EIR is hereby declared to be certified.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program which are appended hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.

SECTION 7. This action is final on the date this Resolution is adopted by the City Council and shall take effect on the thirtieth calendar day after the City Clerk attests this Resolution. Time limits for judicial review, as governed by Public Resources Code Section 21167, shall apply.

SECTION 8 . Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), all documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings are located at the City of Redding City Hall. The City Clerk, whose office is located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding California 96001, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing res olution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 26th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

TENESSA AUDETTE, Mayor

ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:

SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: ^Resolution: Final Environmental Impact Report (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN 2045 AND REPEALING
THE 2000-2020 GENERAL PLAN

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the General Plan on October 3, 2000; and

WHEREAS, no land use changes to the General Plan Diagram are proposed within the reduced Planning Area of General Plan 2045; and

WHEREAS, General Plan 2045 has been prepared in full compliance with the applicable requirements of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code §65000 et seq.) and comprises a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and

WHEREAS, the City Council on March 26, 2024, adopted a resolution incorporated herein by this reference, that (i) certified the Final EIR, (ii) approved and adopted the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and (iii) approved and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program finding that the Final EIR satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Actions; and

WHERAS, the City Council on March 26, 2024, did conduct a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Redding Municipal Code, to hear and consider the staff report and evidence for and against the Proposed Actions, and to investigate and make determinations in connection therewith.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: ^Resolution: General Plan 2045 (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Section 2. Approval. Upon hearing and considering all evidence and reports offered at the March 26, 2024, public hearing, inclusive of all records and documents in the record supporting the certification of the Final EIR and all testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council has considered all factors relating to the Proposed Actions and hereby approves and adopts General Plan 2045; therefore, repealing the 2000-2020 General Plan.

Section 3. Effective Date. The effective date of this Resolution shall be the thirtieth calendar day after attestation of this Resolution by the City Clerk.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 26th day of March, 202 4, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

__________________________________________
TENESSA AUDETTE, Mayor

ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:

_________________________________ _________________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney

Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: ^Resolution: General Plan 2045 (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) ADDITIONAL POLICY DIRECTION OF GENERAL PLAN 2045

The following summarizes the principal changes between the current General Plan and General Plan 2045:

Community Development and Design Element

• Reduces the Planning Area (PA) boundary to more closely reflect the adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The revised PA is approximately 89.9 square miles in size, a reduction of approximately 20 square miles from the current PA. As with the 2000-2020 General Plan, the PA also includes the area south of Redding typically identified as the “Churn Creek Bottom” which is not within the Sphere of Influence (SOI).

• Continues to utilize future growth areas (i.e. Primary and Secondary Growth Areas) to help provide direction on areas that may be subject to annexation requests in the future . The boundaries have been modified to more closely follow the adopted SOI and to focus on those areas where urban services can most efficiently be provided. The Primary Growth Area is ap proximately 8.2 square miles and the Secondary G rowth Area represents 6.5 square miles. For comparison purposes , the existing City limits represent approximately 60 square miles.

• Includes polic ies calling for the additional identification and protection of the City’s historic resources and buildings.

• Adds additional policy guidance to incentivize infill development to accommodate future housing needs in a manner that complements, to the extent possible, exi sting neighborhoods.

• Provides additional poli cy guidance leading to commercial developments that are better designed, both architecturally and for pedestrian access.

• Identifies several “Opportunity Areas” and provides policy guidance related to the potential revitalization of underdeveloped commercial centers.

• Expands the number of Focus areas , which provide broad policy guidance on future development.

Transportation Element

• Provides additional policy guidance to continue the development of “Complete Streets” as required by state law.

• Prioritizes the development of l ow-stress walk and bikeways (i.e. separated from vehicle traffic), where appropriate.

Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: ^Policy Direction of Draft General Plan 2045 (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Policy Direction of General Plan 2045
2 • Maintains the existing traffic Level of Service (L OS) thresholds to address public safety and convenience concerns while implementing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is a CEQA requirement for new development.

Natural Resources Element

• Includes policies that better recognize and protect cultural resources and emphasize the importance of working more closely with local Wintu tribes.

• Eliminates the current Air Quality Element and incorporates the principal provisions into the Natural Resources Element. Consideration of adopting a climate action and resiliency plan for the City is included as policy direction.

• Provides additional policy guidan ce on the City’s native tree resources, including consideration of establishing an urban forestry program for the City.

• Continues to include environmental protection policies related to “special status species ,” wetlands, river and stream corridors, etc.

Public Safety Element

• Provides additional policy guidance addressing the potential for wildland fire damage and destruction.

• Provides 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.

• Maintains the current emphasis for restricting floodplain development.

Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element (New Element)

• Includes policies addressing the need to work with Redding’s more vulnerable residents and provide meaningful opportunities to engage them in planning and similar community processes.

• Provides policy guidance on working with community members to help mitigate or address impacts associated with extreme temperatures, wildfire smoke, and similar conditions.

• Addresses the need to prioritize upgrades to municipal services and infrastructure, including parks and trees, to older neighborhoods, as appropriate.

• Includes policy direction regarding the need to w ork more closely with local agencies to help provide better access to housing, heathy food and medical services.

Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: ^Policy Direction of Draft General Plan 2045 (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Policy Direction of General Plan 2045
3 • Supports local Wintu tribes’ agricultural initiatives, cultural practices, and their traditions and customs related to food gathering.

Noise Element

• Establishes updated transportation “noise contours” based on future traffic projections.

• Includes policy to revise the Noise Ordinance to provide more flexibility for noise - generating uses in the Downtown Core and Civic Auditorium/Rodeo grounds areas.

Public Facilities and Services Element

• Updates facilities and services descriptions , data, and directives for future growth and operations.

Parks, Trails, and Recreation Element

• Updates policies to reflect the most recent provisions of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. No major change in policy direction is proposed.

Economic Development Element

• Includes various strategies to attract “primary industries,” cultivate an adaptable and well- trained workforce, and support expansion of the healthcare industry and digital economic opportunities.

Please n ote: The Housing Element is not being updated as it is on a state mandated 8- year schedule. The Element is scheduled to be updated in 2028. Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: ^Policy Direction of Draft General Plan 2045 (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)

March 2024 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022050300
CITY OF REDDING GENERAL UPDATE:

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

City of Redding

Prepared for:

City of Redding
Jeremy Pagan, Development Services Director
777 Cypress Avenue,
Redding, CA 96001
925.655.2901

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Mark Teague, AICP, Associate Principal
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 202
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- i -
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 A. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS ................................................... 1 B. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 3 C. PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..................................................................................................... 4 A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND OUTREACH ............................................................ 4 B. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS ........... 5 C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................................ 6 D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS ....................................................... 7 E. PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................... 7 F. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 8 G. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 8 III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS ............................. 9 A. FORMAT ................................................................................................................................ 9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 9 B. FINDINGS ON “NO IMPACT” AND “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS” ............................................................................................................................ 11 C. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ................................................. 60 D. SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE
MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................ 65 IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................... 84 A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................... 84 B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS ................................. 85 A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS ......... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ...................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

C. CONCLUSION ..................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

VI. F INDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND REVISIONS TO THE Final EIR ............................................................................................. 96 Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 1 -

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

CITY OF REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022050300
Exhibit A
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by CEQA. The potential environmental effects of the proposed City of Redding General Plan Update have been analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] 202205030) dated July 14, 2023. A Final EIR has also been prepared that incorporates the DEIR and contains comments received on the DEIR , responses to the individual comments, revisions to the DEIR including any clarifications based on the comments and the responses to the comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed project. This document provides the findings required by CEQA for approval of the proposed project.

A. Statutory Requirements for Findings
The CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Ca. Code Regs §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a project is approved. Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant en vironmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 2 -

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the f inal EIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with an other agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. The se measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitutes the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The “changes or alterations” referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) above, that are required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, may include a wide variety of measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over tim e by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Guidelines Section 15093 provides:

Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 3 -
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or sta tewide environmental benefits, of a propos ed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence o f significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice o f determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, the findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

B. Certification
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Redding General Plan Update, as well as other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City of Redding City Council adopts the following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings), in its capacity as the legislative body for the City of Redding (City), which is the CEQA Lead Agency. The Findings set forth the environmental and other bases for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the proposed project.

In addition, the City of Redding City Council hereby make findings pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 and 15091 and hereby certifies that:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

C. Project Environmental Report and Discretionary Actions The Final EIR addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environm ental effects of construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project . The F inal EIR provides the environmental information necessary for the city to make a final decision on the requested discretionary actions for all phases Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 4 -
of the proposed project. The Final EIR was also intended to support discretionary reviews and decisions by other responsible agencies. Discretionary actions to be considered by the city may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Certify that the Final EIR for the proposed project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City; find that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program, finding that the Mitigation Monitoring Program is adequately designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during proposed project implementation; and determine that the significant adverse effects of the proposed project either have been reduced to an acceptable level, or are outweighed by the specific overriding considerations of the proposed project as outlined in the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth herein.  Approve the proposed project and related discretionary actions needed.

II. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City published a DEIR on July 14, 2023. The Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As authorized in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(2), the C ity retained a consultant to assist with the preparation of the environmental documents. City staff from multiple departments, representing the Lead Agenc y, have directed, reviewed, and modified where appropriate all material prepared by the consultant. The Final EIR reflects the City’s independent analysis and judgement. The key milestones associated with the preparation of the DEIR are summarized below. As presented below, an extensive public involvement and agency notification effort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the DEIR and to solicit comments on the results of the environmental analysis presented in the DEIR.

A. Public Notification and Outreach
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.  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) 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 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 scope of the DEIR was determined based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, and comments received in response to the NOP . 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 Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 5 -
Record Searchlight newspaper on July 14, 2023. The NOA was posted at the Shasta County Clerk’s office on July 14, 2023.
 A Planning Commission public hearing was held on August 8, 2023, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001
 Preparation of a Final EIR, including the responses to comments to the DEIR. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final EIR.

In summary, the City conducted all required noticing and scoping for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, and conducted the public review for the DEIR , which exceeded the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.

B. Final Environmental Impact Report and Proceedings
The City prepared a Final EIR, including Responses to Comments to the DEIR. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the DEIR . A total of 24 comment letters were received.

None of the comment letters resulted in the need to modify the environmental analysis in the DEIR.

The Final EIR found that prior to mitigation, implementation of the p roposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to agricultural and for estry resources, air quality, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and wildfire. Impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural and tribal resources, greenhouse gases, noise, and wildfire would remain significant and unavoidable, and no feasible mitigation measures were available. The City prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section B, Project Benefits in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below) for the following impacts which were found to be significant and unavoidable:

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Impact AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban land use.  Impact AG-3: The proposed project would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Air Quality
 Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan.
 Impact 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.

Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 6 -
 Impact 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.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Impact 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Impact GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Noise
 Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.
 Impact NOI-2: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.

Wildfire
 Impact WILD-2: Development under the General Plan 2045 could exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire.

C. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the p roposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project.  The DEIR and Final EIR for the proposed project.
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
 All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project.

Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 7 -
 The Mitigation Monitoring Program.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final EIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and Final EIR.  The Resolutions adopted by the C ity in connection with the p roposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials are required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

D. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the County’s actions related to the proposed project are at Redding City Hall (777 Cypress Ave, Redding, CA). The Redding Director of Development Services is the custodian of the administrative record for the proposed project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request of the City of Redding Department of Development Services. Additionally, the documents are available online at:
https://www.cityofredding.gov/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan.ph p
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).

E. Project Location
The City of Redding’s Planning Area (PA) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) are in south-central Shasta County.

The City is bordered to the north by the City of Shasta Lake and 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 provided 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.

Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 8 -
F. Project Objectives
The following are the objectives of the General Plan 2045:
 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 classifications.
 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.

G. Project Description
The General Plan 2045 (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 decision -makers regarding the allocation of resources and determining the future physical form and character of development in the City and its 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, and 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. Each element includes goals and policies that are based, in part, on creati ng an equitable, sustainable, and livable community of neighborhoods, and provides updates based on State and local law, and other considerations.

Additionally, the General Plan 2045 proposes a reduction to the City’s existing Planning Area . The proposed Planning Area would largely match the boundary of the City’s current SOI . 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. Furthermore, the proposed project would also make adjustments to the City’s existing Focus Areas and would identify new “Opportunity Areas”.

Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 9 -

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
A. Format
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Lead Agency make a finding for each significant effect for the proposed project. This section summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, describes how these impacts are to be mitigated, and discusses various alternatives to the p roposed project, which were developed to reduce the remaining significant environmental impacts. All impacts are considered po tentially significant prior to mitigation unless otherwise stated in the findings.

This remainder of this section is divided into the following subsections:

Section B, Findings on “No Impact” and “Less Than Significant Impacts,” presents environmental issues, as identified in Chapter 5 of the DEIR, which would result in no impact or less than significant impacts.

Section C, Findings on Impacts Mitigated to Less Than Significant, presents significant impacts of the p roposed project that were identified in Ch apter 5 of the DEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the rationales for the findings.

Section D, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to Below the Level of Significance, presents significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the DEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the findings for significant impacts, and the rationales for the findings.

Section IV, Alternatives to the proposed project, presents alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, social, or other considerations.

Section V, Statement of Overriding Considerations, presents a description of the p roposed project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

Section VI, Findings on Responses to Comments on the D EIR and Revisions to the Final EIR, presents the C ity’s findings on the response to comme nts and revisions to Final EIR , and decision on whether a recirculated DEIR is necessary or not.

Summary of Environmental Impacts
Based on the NOP and DEIR, the following is a summary of the environmental topics considered to have no impact, a less than si gnificant impact, a less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures, or a significant and unavoidable impact.

Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 10 -

Less Than Significant Impact or No Impact, No Mitigation Required  Aesthetics (Impact AES-1, Impact AES-2, Impact AES-3)  Agriculture and Forestry Resources (Impact AG-2, Impact AG-4)  Air Quality (Impact AQ-4)
 Biological Resources (Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-2, Impact BIO-3, Impact BIO-4, Impact BIO- 5)
 Cultural and Tribal Resources (Impact CULT-2, Impact CULT-3, Impact TCR-1)  Energy (Impact ENE-1, Impact ENE-2, Impact ENE-3)
 Geology and Soils (Impact GEO-1, Impact GEO -2, Impact GEO -3, Impact GEO -4, Impact GEO-5)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact GHG-2)
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impact HAZ-1, Impact HAZ-2, Impact HAZ-3, Impact HAZ- 4, Impact HAZ-5, Impact HAZ-6, Impact HAZ-7)
 Hydrology and Water Quality (Impact HYD-1, Impact HYD-2, Impact HYD-3, Impact HYD-4, Impact HYD-5)
 Land Use and Planning (Impact LU-1, Impact LU-2)
 Mineral Resources (Impact MIN-1, Impact MIN-2)
 Noise (Impact NOI-4)
 Population and Housing (Impact PH-1, Impact PH-2)
 Public Services and Recreation (Impact PS-1, Impact PS-3, Impact PS -5, Impact PS -7, Impact REC-1, Impact REC-2)
 Transportation (Impact TRANS-1, Impact TRANS-2, Impact TRANS-3, Impact TRANS-4)  Utilities and Service Systems (Impact UTIL-1, Impact UTIL-2, Impact UTIL-3, Impact UTIL-5, Impact UTIL-7, Impact UTIL-8)
 Wildfire (Impact WILD-3, Impact WILD-4)
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated  Geology and Soils (Impact GEO-6)
 Noise (Impact NOI-3)
 Wildfire (Impact WILD-1)
Significant and Unavoidable Impact
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Impact AG-1, Impact AG-3)  Air Quality (Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3)
 Cultural and Tribal Resources (Impact CULT-1)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact GHG-1)
 Noise (Impact NOI-1, Impact NOI-2)
 Wildfire (Impact WILD-2)

Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 11 -

B. Findings on “No Impact” and “Less Than Significant Impacts” The City determined that the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impact s, for the environmental issues summarized below.

The rationale for the conclusion that no significant impact would occur in each of the issue areas is based on the environmental evaluation in the listed topical EIR sections in Chapter 5 of the DEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15901 states that an EIR may not be certified for a project that has one or more significant environmental effects unless one of three findings is made for each significance effect.

Since the follow ing environmental issue areas were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, no findings for these issues are required.

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.

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. Development under the proposed General Plan would consist mainly of infill and redevelopment efforts as well as new development within identified “growth areas”. Although new development would alter the appearance of the existing conditions, it would not create a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or degrade th e 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 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.

The City’s Municipal Code also 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. Additionally, 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 s tandards and programs to protect, preserve, restore, and replant native trees. The Natural Resources Element also includes policies aimed at preserving and protecting trees from future development such as Policy NR6A which seeks to preserve and protect exi sting 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.

Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 12 -

Finding. The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

AES-2: The pr oposed 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.

Construction activities unde r the proposed project 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.

The proposed General Plan 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 se nse of place. These policies include Policy CDD8H, Policy CDD12A, and Policy CDD14A. Future development under the proposed General Plan would also be subject to the provisions of the City’s municipal code and applicable design guidelines that would help to maintain the City’s existing visual character and resources. The proposed project would result in no change to existing land use designations and therefore would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The two majo r 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. 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 can interfere with the scenic quality of an area and contribute to light pollution.

Future development under the proposed General Plan would contribute to light pollution. For instance, the con version of underutilized or vacant areas into residential or commercial uses would introduce new sources of light. However, future development and redevelopment projects 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, Section 18.41.090, has Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 13 -

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 proposed General Plan includes Policy CDD16E would require the City to adopt 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.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
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)).

The proposed project does not require a zone change or general plan amendment and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. The proposed General Plan would continue to allow residential categories which allow for housing and permit agricultural uses in the interim. Furthermore, there are currently no Williamson Act contracts within the City. 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 agricul tural 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 propo sed General Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forestland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore , no impact would occur.

Finding. The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impact relating to an existing Williamson contract or conflicts with existing zoning for timberland. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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 Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 14 -

of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

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.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less t han significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses or conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

3. Air Quality
AG-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Construction activities that have the potential to emit odors and similar emissions include operation of diesel equipment, generation of fugitive dust, and paving (asphalt). Odors and other similar emissions from construction would be intermittent and temporary, and generally would not extend beyond the construction area. Projects that have a potential to generate odorous emissions include, but are not limited to, cannabis cultivation, processing, and manufacturing facilities; wastewater treatment facilities; transfer stations; asphalt batch plants; food processing facilities; painting/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), chemical manufacturing facilities, and similar uses.

The City’s Municipal Code contains several ordinances that would eliminate, or limit odors emitted by various land uses. For example, Section 18.40.110 (C), Performance Standards-Citywide, Odors, 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. Section 18.34.030 (B) 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.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact regarding odor-related emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 15 -

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. 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.

A total of 35 special- status wildlife species (six invertebrates, three amphibians, one reptile, 15 birds, and 10 mammals) are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the SOI. Of these 35 special - status species, there are six invertebrates (Conservancy fairy shrimp, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole, Shasta Crayfish, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle), Crotch’s Bumblebee, one amphibian (California red-legged frog), and four bird species (Bald eagle, Northern spotted owl, Bank swallow, Tricolored blackbird) listed or considered federal and/or State -listed wildlife species known to occur in the SOI.

Construction activities as a result of the proposed project may involve the storage, use or discharge of toxic and other harmful substances near water bodies or in areas that drain to these water bodies. Heavy construction equipment often use petroleum products, such as fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids and coolants, all of which may be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. An accidental spill or inadvertent discharge of these materials could affect the water quality of the river or water body and thereby affect fish or fish habitat.

The goals and policies in the Natural Resources Element of the proposed General Plan Update; and compliance with the policies and regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTA), California Endangered Species Act ( CESA), California Fish and Game Code (CDFW), Clean Water Act (CWA), and California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) would reduce potential impacts to special -status species associated with new development allowed under General Plan.

Finding: The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to habitat modifications; candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lesse n any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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 regulati ons or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

The City’s SOI contains sensitive natural communities, including Great Valley Cottonwood, Riparian Forest, Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest, and Great Vall ey Willow Scrub. Activities under the proposed project could result in adverse effects on these sensitive natural communities.

Disturbance or alteration of streams, lakes, or non -federally protected (non -jurisdictional) wetlands would require a permit, which would include conditions to protect these sensitive natural communities.

Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 16 -

A Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement would be needed from the C alifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to initiation of project construction activities within the city that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream or lake, or that would use material from a streambed. Non -jurisdictional wetlands include wetland features that are not hydrologically connected to navigable waters in rivers and are not under United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. These wetlands would still be considered waters of the State and would be regulated according to waste discharge requirements that would be issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). Compliance with the State regulatory procedures would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project will have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

BIO-3: The proposed project would not have a substan tial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Construction activities could potentially have direct and indirect impacts on waters of the United States.

The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan Update contains policies that address potential impacts to wetlands: Policy NR5A, which directs the City to work to preserve the Sacramento River and streams or stream segments identified in Figure NR-1 (of the Natural Resources Element); Policy NR5B which calls for the preservation of watercourses, vernal pools, riparian habitat, and wetlands in their natural state to the extent feasible; and Policy NR5C which encourages the acquisi tion, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of native vegetation with a focus on wetlands and riparian habitat that will improve the biological value and integrity of the City's natural resources.

In addition, in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, a formal delineation of waters of the United States would need to be conducted prior to the initiation of construction activities in the SOI where potentially jurisdictional features are present. The results of the delineation, including a report and map, would be submitted to the Sacramento District of the United Sates Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for verification. If the USACE determines that no waters of the United States are present, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit would not be required, although waste discharge requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) might be required. If the USACE determines that waters of the United States are present, a Section 404 permit from the USACE for placement of fill within waters of the United States and a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB would be required. Placement of fill materials into waters of the United States would require compensation to ensure no net loss of aquatic resources. In addition, a Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement is needed from the CDFW if a project were to divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are regulated by the RWQCB according to waste discharge requirements. Required compensation for the loss of degraded habitat could be less than that for undisturbed habitat, but compensation ratios would ultimately be determined by the resource agencies and be stated in the permit conditions. Compliance with the proposed General Plan policies and State regulatory procedures would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 17 -

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on state or federally protected wetlands through direct re moval, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

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 corridor s represent significant migratory fish and wildlife corridor s 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 u ndeveloped open space areas surrounding the city provide terrestrial connectivity. Development along these areas could occur and could impede movement of native or migratory species.

Additionally, non-special status migratory birds could nest within the SOI . Construction activities in or near habitat for special- status birds could result in interference with the movement of a native resident or migratory wildlife species. However , compliance with California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 (active bird nests) and the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (MBTA), would ensure that raptors, such as eagles, owls, and other migratory birds and their nests are protected. In addition, Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take nongame birds, such as those occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds, except when in accordance with regulations of the California Fish and Game Commission or a mitigation plan approved by CDFW for mining operations. Therefore, these regulations would ensure the protection of migratory and native bird species and reduce impacts to less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on 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.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The City of Redding Municipal Code (RMC) includes Chapter 18.45, Tree Management Ordinance, which promotes the conservation of mature, hea lthy trees in the design of new development. In addition, Chapter 13.40, Trees and Shrubs, of the RMC regulates trees on public areas and plant strips.

The General Plan Update includes Policy NR6C which calls for periodic review of the 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 c onsiders undertaking Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 18 -

measures to maintain and expand the urban forest such as reviewing and updating the Heritage Tree provisions of RMC Section 13.40.020, particularly as part of 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 HCPs , NCCPs or other habitat conservation plans.

Finding: The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor with the provisions o f an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

4. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CULT-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guide lines Section 15064.5.

Development allowed by the General Plan Update could result in direct or indirect impacts to archaeological resources. Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of archaeological sites.

Adoption of the General Plan Update in itself would not directly affect archaeological resources. Long- term implementation of the General Plan Update land use plan could include grading, and other ground-disturbing activities, of k nown and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources.

There are numerous confidential archaeological sites that represent the prehistoric and historic occupation and history of the city but are not publicly disclosed. The recorded sites include items such as milling stones, flakes tools, bone fragments, chipping waste, scrapers, hammerstones, and various ground stone scatter. Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code. Cultural resources are also recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Review and protection of archaeological resources are afforded by CEQA for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the General Plan Update. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 of CEQA, the lead agency is required to determine whether a development project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources.

If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the project -level CEQA document prepared for the development project is required to address the issue of those resources.

It is also important to note that the General Plan Update is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the city and does not result in development in and Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 19 -

of itself. Before any development or redevelopment activities can occur in the city, they must be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Long-term implementation of the General Plan Update could include grading of unknown sensitive areas. Grading and co nstruction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Therefore, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded archaeological resources. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements would mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on archeological resources. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

CULT-3: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Although the General Plan Update would not affect any formal cemeteries or known burials outside of formal cemeteries, future development could disturb unknown human remains.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Public Resource s Code Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and has reason to believe they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with the General Plan Update could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law and proposed General Plan policies, such as Policy NR9B, which requires that any human remains discovered during implementation of projects within the City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. Theref ore, policies in the proposed General Plan would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would be mitigated to less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on human remains. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 20 -

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.

The City of Redding is located in a region known to have been occupied by the Wintu tribes. Wintu territory encompassed portions of present -day Trinity, Tehama, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties. The territory is bounded in the southeast by the South Fork Trinity River, in the southwest by Beegum and Little Cow creeks, and in the north by Mount Shasta.

Development allowed by General Plan U pdate could result in direct or indirect impacts to tribal cultural resources. Construction activities, such as grading and excavation, may result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of tribal cultural resources and/or sites. However, the General Plan Update includes goals, policies, and actions that would serve to protect and reduce impacts related tribal cultural resources. The Natural Resources Element Goal NR9 and its associated policies aim to reduce potential impacts of new development on tri bal cultural resources. Policy NR9A seeks to ensure protection of prehistoric, cultural, and archaeological resources during the development process and requires consultation with local indigenous tribes and representatives to help identify and preserve cultural resources during the development review process. Policy NR9C requires record searches for discretionary projects with the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System and consultation and distribution of environmental review documents to the Native American Heritage Commission through the State Clearinghouse. The policies and regulations in the General Plan Update would address potential impacts regarding tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially les sen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

5. 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.

Construction Impacts
Construction of development projects facilitated by the General Plan Update would create temporary demands for electricity. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment , and therefore is not anticipated during construction phases. Electricity use would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.

Construction of development projects facilitated by the General Plan Update would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode.

Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 21 -

Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and ha ul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary.

Construction contractors would minimize none ssential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in development in Redding. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction.

Long Term Impacts During Operation
The operation of new development projects accommodated under the Genera l Plan Update would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; and lighting.

Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
Building Electricity
Electrical service to the City is provided by the Redding Electric Utility (REU) through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on -site infrastructure. As shown in Table 5.6 -3, Year 2045 Forecast Electricity Consumption, by horizon year 2045 , on page 5.6-25 of the DEIR, electricity use in the City is estimated to increase by 126,814 kWh/year, or approximately 17 percent, from existing conditions. As a result, the per service population electricity consumption was estimated to increase from 4.29 kWh per person per year in 2020 to 4.30 kWh per person per year in 2045. However, the 2045 electricity consumpt ion estimates reflect the electricity consumption rates of the existing community which is made up of a building stock that consists of varying ages and energy efficiency performances. All new development facilitated by the proposed project would be requir ed to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Standards Code and CALGreen and would result in reductions in electricity consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development in the City. Moreover, General Plan Policies NR11A, NR11B, NR11C, NR11D, NR11E, and NR11F would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in new development facilitated by the proposed project. As a result, per service population building electricity consumption is expected to decrease in 2045 compared to existing 2020 conditions.

Building Natural Gas and Propane
As shown in Table 5.6-4, Year 2045 Forecast Natural Gas and Propane Consumption, on page 5.6-26 of the DEIR, existing annual natural gas an d propane use in the City totals 15,958,219 therms and 140,647 million British thermal units (MMBTU), respectively. By 2045, natural gas use in the City would increase by 2,661,553 therms annually, or approximately 17 percent, from existing conditions to a total of 18,619,771 therms per year. By 2045, propane use in the City would increase by 23,182 MMBTU annually, or approximately 16 percent, from existing conditions to a total of 163,829 MMBTU per year.

As a result, the per service population natural gas consumption was estimated to decrease from 91.97 Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 22 -

therms per person per year in 2020 to 91.84 therms per person per year in 2045 for natural gas.

Propane, however, is estimated to remain relatively constant between 2020 and 2045 at approximately

0.81 MMBTU per person per year. Similar to electricity consumption, all new development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current California Building Standards Code and CALGreen and would result in reductions in heating fuel (i.e., natural gas or propane) consumption on a per dwelling unit and per square foot basis when compared to existing development in the City. Moreover, General Plan Policies NR11A, NR11B, NR11C, NR11D, NR11E, and NR11F would serve to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in new development facilitated by the proposed project. As a result, per service population heating fuel consumption is expected to decrease in 2045 compared to existing 2020 conditions.

Transportation Energy
The growth accommodated under the General Plan Update would consume transportation energy from the use of motor vehicles (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, electricity). As shown in Table 5.16-3, Redding 2020 and 2045 VMT Summary, of Chapter 5.16, Transportation, on page 5.16-38 of the DEIR, implementation of the proposed project would increase daily VMT from 1,451,321 in 2020 to 2,106,149 vehicle miles per day in 2045 in the City, or about 69 percent. Service population, which is the sum of employees and residents in the City of Redding and Sphere of Influence (SOI), would also increase under the proposed project. To identify the service population for the City and SOI, the existing and forecasted dwelling units were multiplied by the City’s average persons per household rate of 2.41 and combined with the employment estimates provided by GHD (2022). As shown therein, the service population for the City and SOI would increase from approximately 173,517 people to 202,737 people, or an increase of approximately 17 percent. As a result, per person daily VMT would increase from approximately 6.64 miles traveled to approximately 10.39 miles traveled daily.

As identified, the proposed project would result in greater daily per person VMT under future ( 2045) conditions than under existing (2020) conditions. Nonetheless, the proposed project is also anticipated to result in the incorporation of areas in the City’s Sphere of Influence, resulting in future residents and employees needing to drive farther distances to reach existing and future businesses and residences.

In addition, the average vehicle fuel economy would improve between 2020 and 2045 as vehicle manufacturers comply with CAFE standards and other fuel economy standards, resulting in lower transportation energy consumption per mile traveled. Therefore, while overall and per person VMT would increase as a result of the proposed project, it is anticipated that per person transportation energy consumed would decrease over time as vehicles’ fuel efficiency improves.

Summary
Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations will increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of proposed policies under the General Plan Update in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the General Plan Update would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 23 -

energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

ENE-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The RPS goals have been updated since adoption of SB 1078 in 2002.

In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1 -2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030.

The General Plan Update includes policies, such as NR11A and NR11C, which would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Moreover, the General Plan Update includes policies, such as those contained in the Transportation Element (e.g., T1C, T1D, T2A, T6A, T7A) and Community Development and Design Element (e.g., CDD10I, CDD14C, CDD4C) that would encourage active modes of transportation and reduce future residents’ and employees’ dependence on motorized vehicles. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, and this impact would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative impact that would obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed proj ect were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

ENE-3: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded energy facilities, the construction or rel ocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The proposed project would accommodate future growth in the City that would require new or expanded energy facilities; however, the proposed project would not directly result in the construction of new or expanded energy facilities. The California I ntegrated Resource Plan (I RP) is the principal planning document that identifies California Independent System Operator ( CAISO’s) forecasts for electricity demand, supply, and transmission needs over a 20 -year planning horizon, as well as its strategies for integrating renewable energy resources and other grid services to meet those needs. These forecasts take into account the expected growth in population and development in corresponding Local Serving Entity’s (LSE’s) service areas, such as the population and development envisioned under the proposed project within REU’s service area.

Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 24 -

In addition to the IRP, which principally governs the planning efforts for new and expanded electricity and natural gas facilities, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) in December 2022 adopted a new framework to comprehensively review utility natural gas infrastructure investments in order to help the State transition away from natural-gas fueled technologies and avoid stranded assets in the gas system. The new framework requires utilities to seek CPUC approval of natural gas infrastructure projects of $75 million or more or those with significant air quality impacts. The new framework is intended to capture na tural gas projects likely to have the most substantial community and environmental impacts and to require demonstrate project compliance with CEQA. Therefore, while the proposed project may result in increased energy resource demand by facilitating populat ion and development growth in the City, and subsequently in REU’s service area, any new or expanded facilities needed as a result of meeting that increased demand would undergo its own review to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects and demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements. As such, the proposed project would not result in new or expanded energy facilities which may cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed proj ect would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact in the relocation or construction of new or expanded energy facilities. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially le ssen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

6. 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.

Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
The nearest active faults are the Rocky Ledge Fault about 36 miles northeast of the city, and the Hat Creek Fault approximately 46 miles east of the city. The Battle Creek Fault, about 5 miles south of the city, is not considered active by the California Geological Survey —that is, there is no evidence of surface displacement of the fault within the last 11,000 years —but is considered active by the US Bureau of Reclamation. As seen in Figure 5.7-2, Distances And Directions To Relevant Faults, on page 5.7- 10 of the DEIR, the segment of the Battle Creek Fault east of the Sacramento River shows evidence of displacement within approximately the last 700,000 years, while the segment of the fault west of the River shows displacement within about the last 2.6 million years.

The Public Safety Element of the General Plan Update contains policies that address potential fault rupture impacts, such as Policy PS1A, which requires that new structures and alterations to existing structures comply with the seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code (CBC); Policy PS1B, which calls for geotechnical investigations for proposed developments on sites with potential hazards; and Policy PS10B, which encourages owners of existing critical, sensitive, and high-occupancy facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities to upgrade, relocate, or phase out the facilities. All new construction in Redding would be required to comply with the latest version of the CBC, which contains criteria and standards designed to reduce ground rupture risks to acceptable levels. To apply this code to site development, the City of Redding requires that new construction be in accordance Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 25 -

with building, grading, and erosion -control ordinances of the City’s Municipal Code, and includes inspections during plan check and construction to ensure that design standards are met. The proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, in combination with the Alquist- Priolo Act, CBC, and other State and local requirements, would reduce potential impacts associated with surface fault rupture to less than significant.

Seismic Ground Shaking
Shasta County has a low level of historic seismic activity. Most of the stronger intensity seismic activity in Shasta County has occurred in the eastern half of the county near Lassen Peak. The City of Redding is in the less seismically active western half of Shasta County, referred to as an area of moderate seismicity. Regardless, moderate to strong ground shaking associated with seismic activity could cause damage to structures and injury or death to inhabitants. The implementation of the following Public Health and Safety Element policies of the General Plan Update would address potential ground - shaking hazards: Policy PS1A, which requires that new structures and alterations to existing structures comply with the seismic safety requirements of the CBC; Policy PS1B, which calls for geotechnical investigations for proposed developments on sites with potential hazards; and Policy PS10B, which encourages owners of existing critical, sensitive, and high-occupancy facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities to upgrade, relocate, or phase out the facilities.

Furthermore, new construction in Redding is required to comply with the latest version of the California Building Standards Code, which contains seismic building criteria and standards that are designed to reduce ground-shaking risks to acceptable levels. The proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, in combinati on with the CBC and other State and local requirements, would reduce potential ground-shaking impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure (Liquefaction)
Future development and redevelopment in areas along the Sacramento River could be exposed to liquefaction hazards. These hazards include soil settlement, loss of bearing capacity in foundation soils, and the buoyant rise of structures, leading to structural distress or failure. Excess hydrostatic pressure may also lead to sand b oils, mud spouts, and seepage of water through ground cracks. The implementation of the following Health and Safety Element policies of the General Plan Update would address potential seismic -related ground failure hazards: Policy PS1A, which requires tha t new structures and alterations to existing structures comply with the seismic safety requirements of the UBC; Policy PS1B, which calls for geotechnical investigations for proposed developments on sites with potential hazards; and Policy PS10B, which encourages owners of existing critical, sensitive, and high-occupancy facilities with significant seismic vulnerabilities to upgrade, relocate, or phase out the facilities.

In accordance with the CBC, geotechnical investigations for new development and redeve lopment would determine on-site geologic conditions and identify appropriate recommendations for earthwork, grading, slopes, foundations, pavements, and other necessary geologic and seismic design considerations. Compliance with the CBC would identify pote ntial for liquefaction hazards on individual development sites and the construction of buildings and infrastructure that ensures structural integrity to withstand liquefaction hazards. The proposed General Plan Update goals, Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 26 -

policies, and actions, in combination with the CBC and other State and local requirements, would reduce potential seismic-related ground failure impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Landslides
Slope instability and landslides are a common problem where there are steep slopes and unstable geologic formations. Most of the city is relatively flat to gently sloping. The western portion of the city does contain slopes that may be susceptible to landslides. Slump -type failures and lateral spreading failures would likely occur at the edge of alluvial terraces and along the floodplain of the Sacramento River.

The Public Safety Element of the General Plan Update includes the following policies that address potential landslide hazards: Policy PS1B, which calls for geotechnical investigations f or proposed developments on sites with potential hazards, and Policy PS1C which requires project proponents to determine the landslide, slope-instability, and erosion potential of proposed development sites located in potential hazard areas and to utilize building setbacks, grading techniques, or appropriate measures when constructing in or near unstable areas. The proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, in combination with the CBC, Grading and Erosion Control Ordinances of the City’s Municipal Cod e, and other State and local requirements, would ensure that potential slope instability and landslide impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Erosion results in the loss of topsoil that may cause sedimentation downstream, and in extreme cases, can lead to landslides. Erosion hazards are of particular concern in the western and northern portions of the city. Approximately 11,000 acres within Redding have erosive soil. The Public Safety Element and Natural Resource Element of the General Plan Update includes policies that addresses soil erosion impacts including Policy PS1B which requires an investigation into proposed developments on sites with potential hazards, including necessary infrastructure in areas determined to have a "high" liquefaction potential shall be prepared as may be required by the Building Official. Policy PS1C would also require project proponents to determine the landslide, slope-instability, and erosion potential of proposed development sites located in potential hazard areas. Policy NR1A directs the City to consider updating the process for the development, review, and approval of erosion- and sedimentation- control plans for development projects prior to including the use of best available practices. Policy NR1H would also provide opportunities for staff responsible for monitoring and enforcing the City's Grading Ordinance to receive adequate training regarding erosion- and sedimentation-control practices.

New construction in Redding would also be required to comply with the Grading Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Cod e, which includes requirements for control of erosion due to construction activities for certain project types and locations. The proposed General Plan Update goals and policies, in combination with the Redding Grading Ordinance and other State and local r equirements, would reduce potential erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 27 -

Finding. The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

New development allowed by the General Plan Update could occur in such hazard areas. Several areas that are part of the proposed General Plan Update could be subject to seismically induced landslides and liquefaction. However, the proposed General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, in combination with the CBC, Grading Ordinance, and other State and local requirements, would ensure that potential unstable soil impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The General Plan Update would allow new development in areas with expansive soils. Newly constructed buildings, pavements, and utilities in areas with expansive soils could be damaged by differential settlement due to soil expansion and contraction. These variations in ground settlement may ultimately lead to structural failure and damage to infrastructure.

The adverse effects of expansive soils can be avoided through proper subsoil preparation, drainage, and foundation design. However, to design an adequate foundation, the conditions must be assessed through appropriate soil sampling and laboratory soils testing. Expansive soils are identified through expansion tests of samples of soil or rock. Procedures employed in expansive soils testing are found in the CBC that has been adopted by the City of Redding.

The Public Safety Element of the General Plan Update includes the Policy P S1B which calls for geotechnical investigations for proposed developments on sites with potential hazards . This policy would ensure that sites are investigated, and that proper mitigation is included to reduce the impacts of expansive soils. This policy in combination with the CBC and other State and local requirements, would ensure that potential expansive soil impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relating to development on expansive soils . Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 28 -

GEO-5: The project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater dispo sal systems where soils would be incapable of adequately supporting the in cases where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

There are portions of Redding that have soils that are unsuitable for wastewater disposal through septic systems. These include areas with shallow groundwater, impermeable clay soils, and/or steep slopes.

Future development under the General Plan Update would connect to the City’s sewer system, where feasible. The following policy in the Community Development and De sign Element of the General Plan Update addresses septic tanks: Policy CDD1F, which generally opposes development of community septic systems, wastewater package plants, and/or temporary sewage disposal facilities within the Primary and Secondary Growth areas for developments within the jurisdiction of Shasta County. The General Plan Update policy, in combination with State and local requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on 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.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.

CARB Scoping Plan
The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standards mandate and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards.

Development projects accommodated under the proposed project are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG emissions reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, new buildings under the proposed project would be required to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Furthermore, as discussed under the discussion for Impact GHG-1, the proposed project includes General Plan Update policies that would help reduce GHG emissions and therefore help achieve GHG reduction goals. Implementation of the proposed project Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 29 -

would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Shasta Regional Transportation Agency’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
The RTP/SCS is the Shasta Coun ty regional transportation plan to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified under SB 375. The 2018 RTP/SCS includes an updated SCS which features seven Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs) where strategies are focused to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and associated GHGs. Strategies are intended to increase population and employment density within SGAs and to provide a range of practical mobility alternatives. The General Plan Update would include development within a designated SGA which is the City of Redding’s Downtown area.

The County’s RTP directs the focus of development in infill areas, such as the downtown area. As shown in Table 5.8-6, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, on page 5.8-43 of the DEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the RTP as the proposed project aims to direct its future growth in infill areas.

The land use patterns envisioned by the General Plan Update would support and encourage denser development in the downtown region as mentioned in Policy CCD9C and Policy CDD11K which encourages denser residential and mixed-use development within the City’s Downtown area.

In addition, t he proposed project would not redesignate or rezone to accommodate future development that would induce additional pop ulation, VMT, or additional emissions . The General Plan Update would primarily develop within infill locations. Thus, the project would be consistent with the overall goals of the RTP/SCS in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit as noted in Policy CDD10A, Policy CDD10C, Policy CDD10D, Policy CDD10E, and Policy T4A, in the General Plan Update. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in the RTP/SCS, and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would induce population and housing growth necessary to meet the population growth and housing needs in the City. Thus, the proposed project would provide more housing for residents to both live and work in the City instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and reducing VMT per service population.

Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the RTP/SCS ability to implement the regional strategies in Shasta County Area, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact with respect to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 30 -

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: T he proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Construction
During construction of future projects throughout the C ity, new development would potentially involve the use of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. Hazardous materials are transported through Union Pacific R ailroad and I -5 which are major interstate transportation routes that pass through the City. In addition, State Routes support relatively high traffic volumes with trains and trucks that can carry a variety of hazardous materials. Future construction activities would be short- term in nature, and the materials used would not require use or storage of hazardous materials in quantities that would pose a substantial safety hazard. Future construction contractors would be required to ensure that the use, transport, storage, and disposal of construction-related materials is in conformance with existing laws and regulations, such as the D epartment of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations which sets general requirements for the transport of hazardous materials.

Additionally, construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to reduce eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorize non-stormwater discharges from the construction site. BMPs for hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, off -site refueling, placement of generators on impervious surfaces, establishing clean out areas for cement, etc.

Furthermore, the General Plan Update includes policies regarding the use, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials including Policy PS9D s trives to route vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials along transportation corridors that reduce the risk of exposure to public and sensitive environmental areas. Policy PS9E takes appropriate actions to implement the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response component of the City's Emergency Operations Plan in the event of a hazardous material spill, accident, or release within Redding's corporate limits. Policy PS9F encourages the state to regularly monitor and report on the types and amounts of hazardous materials being transported through the Planning Area on state highways and Interstate 5.

While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the General Plan Update policies. Therefore, transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities in accordance with the proposed project would be properly managed, and impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for impacts to occur.

Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 31 -

Operation
Operation of projects developed pursuant to the General Plan Update would involve hazardous materials used in industrial, commercial, residential, and other land uses, including but not limited to:
cleaners, solvents, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers. The amounts of hazardous materials used would vary by land use type. The General Plan Update is expected to increase the number of hazardous waste generators.

Hazardous wastes are required to be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, DOT, CalRecycle, and Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Division. For example, the Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7, Article 1, Business and Area Plan, requires regulated facilities to complete Haz ardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) reporting if they store hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than, 55 gallons (liquids), 200 cubic feet (gases) or 500 pounds (solids). The HMBP requires providing a Hazardous Materials Inventory and S ite Map and Emergency response and Employee Training Plan (ER/TP) to be reported to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS). Future commercial and industrial uses must follow specific guidelines to manage, store, and transport generated hazard ous waste detailed by the Shasta County Department of Resource Management Environmental Health which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Redding.

Additionally, implementation of General Plan Update Policy PS9A, which 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, which aims to reduce the risk of exposure to the public and sensitive 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

HAZ-2: The project would not cr eate 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.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in land uses t hat would require the use, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials throughout the City. Personal injury, property damage, environmental degradation, or death could result from the release of hazardous materials caused by upset or accident conditions. However, General Plan Update Policy PS9E, which directs the implementation of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response component of the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in the event of a hazardous material spill, accident, or release within Redding's corporate limits, would reduce such impacts. In the case of an accidental spill or release of hazardous material, there are plans and responsible agencies in place to reduce significant hazards to the public.

Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 32 -

Although the risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials cannot be completely eliminated, it can be reduced to a manageable level. Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Division is responsible for the Hazmat Business Plans, Hazardous Waste Generator and On- site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs, Underground Storage Tank Program, California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), and the Aboveground Petroleum Storage (SPCC) Plans . Businesses using hazardous materials in Redding would be required to register with these programs and comply with their guidelines. Proper implementation of these CUPA programs, in conjunction with other State and federal regulations and the General Plan Update policies discussed above, would reduce the impact of reasonably foreseeable accidents and/or upset conditions involving the release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, ind irect, and cumulative impact as it 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would allow land uses that w ould handle hazardous materials or generate hazardous emissions. It is possible that such uses could occur nea r existing or proposed schools. However, the General Plan Update includes policies aimed to keep sensitive facilities such as schools safe from the exposure of hazardous materials. For instance, Policy PS9D promotes the routing of vehicles carrying potenti ally hazardous materials along transportation corridors that reduce the risk of exposure to the public and sensitive environmental areas , and Policy PS10A aims to locate new critical, sensitive, or high-occupancy facilities outside the high hazard areas and ensure adequate street access to these facilities.

However, potential exposure to hazardous materials within proximity to school sites would be reduced as all users of hazardous materials are subject to federal, State, and local laws that ensure that hazardous material use, emission and transportation are controlled to a safe level. The combination of federal, State, and local regulations described in previous sections, and General Plan Update policies that call for reducing risks from the harmful effects of hazardous materials, would ensure that the risk of hazardous materials or emissions within proximity to school sites would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as it 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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 Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 33 -

a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

As noted in Table 5.9-1, Geotracker Sites In The City Of Redding and 5.9-2, Envirostor Sites In The City Of Redding on pages 5.9-14 and 5.9-15 of the DEIR, respectively, there are a total of 282 sites in the City that are included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

These sites have a history of contamination with hazardous materials and are subject to various State and federal laws and regulators, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and RWQCB.

Development allowed by the General Plan Update could create a hazard to the public or the environment if the development occurs on contaminated sites. Although it is possible that construction activities resulting from the General Plan could occur within or adjacent to hazardous sites , development on or adjacent to any sites, such as those pursuant to Government Code 65962.5, would require environmental site assessment by a qualified professional to ensure that the projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites, nor create a substantial hazar d to the public or the environment.

Properties contaminated by hazardous substances are also regulated at the local, state, and federal level and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation.

The General P lan Update includes Policy P S9C which requires that where soils containing toxic or hazardous substances are identified, remediation to the satisfaction of the agency having jurisdiction shall occur prior to the granting of any permits for new development or as otherwise required by the responsible agency. Therefore, this policy would not allow development to occur on a hazardous site unless remediated to a safe level for the public. The proposed General Plan Update policies, in combination with State and f ederal regulations, would reduce the hazard to the public and the environment to a less-than-significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

HAZ-5: The project would be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 mil es 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.

There are two public airports, one private-use facility, and three private heliports in the City of Redding.

The Airport Master Plan for Redding Regional Airport focuses on facility changes and development direction of the airport. The Shasta County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Comprehensive Land Use Plan covers the Redding Regional Airport and surrounding area. Benton Airpark also adopted an Airport Master Plan which focuses on the long-term planning of airport operations of the airpark.

Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 34 -

The General Plan Update could bring in new development into the Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) of these airport land use plans. However, future development in these AIAs would need to comply with existing regulations regarding airport areas. For example, Chapter 18.50, “A” Airport Environs Overlay, of the Municipal Code, includes provisions for height requirements, land use and nonconforming land use restrictions. Therefore, only restricted development allowed would occur in these areas.

The General Plan Update contains policies designed to lessen the impact of airport hazards, such as Policy P S7A, which discourages development that could endanger the safety of air travelers and persons residing or working in the Airport environs by adhering to the land use policies contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Airport Approach Zone provisions of the Municipal Code, and applicable Shasta County ALUC resolutions , and Policy PS7C, which seeks to establish an avigation easement for new development in vicinity of the Redding Regional Airport and Benton Airpark to address overflight noise and other potential aviation-related impacts. Proposed development under the General Plan Update would not conflict with the Benton Airpark’s Airport Master Plan or the Redding Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed General Plan Update, in combination with local regulations and General Plan policies, would reduce airport hazards to a less-than-significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact with respects to conflicts with airport land use plans. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The General Plan Update would allow new development and population growth, which would result in an increase in demand for emergency services during disasters, which could affect the implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans.

Construction
An impact to emergency operations and evacuation under the proposed General Plan Update could occur from construction of potential future development projects if they were to result in temporary road closures and potentially disrupt evacuation routes. Potential future development in the city would be required to comply with S tate Responsibility Area (S RA) Fire Safe Regulations, the California Building Code (CBC), and the California Fire Code (CFC). Some traffic delays can be expected during proposed project construction; however, traffic impacts during construction are temporary in nature and would cease once construction activities are complete. Future construction-related road closures would be limited to the duration of the construction period, a detour plan would be created (as needed), and direct impacts of construction would be evaluated during the project environmental review process or permit review.

Future development u nder the proposed project would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of lane closures. This could affect emergency response times or Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 35 -

evacuation routes. However, future project applicants would need to apply for an encroachment permit application and submittal requirements including the Temp Traffic Control Plan Guidelines for projects that involve working in the City of Redding right of way with the City’s Engineering Division.

Operation
The General Plan Update would increase the number of people who may need to evacuate the city in the event of an emergency. Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of most recent versions of the CFC and CBC, which would ens ure that building and life safety measures are incorporated and would facilitate implementation of emergency response plans. For example, the California Fire Code Chapter 49 cites specific requirements for wildland-urban interface areas that include, but are not limited to, providing defensible space and hazardous vegetation and fuel management.

The City of Redding EOP details emergency response and mitigation planning for the city. The EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organizational, and response policies and procedures and how the City would coordinate with emergency response from other levels of government. The City of Redding is also covered under the Redding Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Both the LHMP and EOP provide guidance to effectively respond to an emergency.

The operation phase of future development projects would not involve physical components that would interfere with the ability of the City, and emergency response service providers in the event of an emergency. The General Plan Update includes policies aimed at addressing the City’s emergency preparedness in the event of natural or human-made disasters.

The General Plan Update would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation. The proposed General Plan Update, in combination with state laws and regulations, as well as General Plan Update policies , would reduce hazards regarding implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans to a less-than-significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the implementation of the proposed project would not result in conflicts with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The General Plan Update would allow new development where there are fire risks that could expose people to loss, injury, or death due to wildfires. As shown in Figure 5.9 -1, G eotracker Sites In The City Of
Redding, on page 5.79- 14 of the DEIR, the north and northwest portions of the city limits are within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as designated by the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the north and west portions of the SOI are within VHFHSZ as designated by the SRA, and the north, west, and east portions of the Planning Area are within VHFHSZ as designated by the SRA.

Although the majority of the land within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones is designated as Greenway, there are residential, public facilities, and commercial uses allowed in these areas.

Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 36 -

Development under the General Plan Update would be subject to compliance with the most recent CBC and CFC. The CFC (Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) includes Section 4905.2, Construction Methods and Requirements within Established Limits. The CFC Chapter 49 cites specific requirements for wildland-urban interface areas that include, but are not limited to, providing defensible space and hazardous vegetation and fuel management. Future development would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Fire Code, which includes fire safety measures and protection systems for new buildings.

Additionally, the Redding Electric Utility’s (REU) Wildfire Mitigation Plan provides strategies and measures aimed to reduce fire hazards from public utilities, such as vegetation management, enhanced inspections, and operational practices. The City of Redding is covered by the Shasta County EOP and the Redding LHMP. These plans provide guidance to effectively respond to any emergency, including wildfires.

In addition, The General Plan Update includes policies that would reduce wildfire impacts . For example, Policy PS4B requires that all new development and red evelopment projects be designed to meet state and local standards for fire protection and encourages the upgrade of existing structures to current standards. Policy PS4C directs the City to enforce existing codes and standards, to ensure all new and existing developments provide defensible space, and that non -combustible design with appropriate building exterior and roofing materials, spark arresting system, Fire alarms, and fire sprinkler systems are installed. Policy PS4D directs the City to continue to include the Fire Department in the project development review process to ensure projects adequately address safety, on -site fire protection, and comply with applicable fire and building codes.

The General Plan Update would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed General Plan Update, in combination with state laws and regulations , as well as General Plan policies , would reduce hazards regarding fire risks to a less-than-significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires . Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

9. 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.

The intensification of land uses in the city could degrade water quality through increases in non-point- source pollution from new impervious surfaces, construction activity that increases erosion and sediment loads in downstream receiving waters, increased pollutants from additional traffic, and increased use of chemicals and other pollutants from various land uses allowed by the General Plan Update. However, new developments under the General Plan Update would be subject to several state and local regulations that would ensure that water quality standards are not violated. For example, the Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 37 -

State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (CGP), which applies to construction activity that disturbs one acre or more, requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants from discharging from the construction site to the maximum extent practicable. The CGP also prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water and authorized non- storm water discharges (such as irrigation and pipe flushing and testing).

Additionally, the SWRCB has adopted a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013 - 0001-DWQ) for small MS4s covered under the CWA to efficiently regulate numerous storm water discharges under a single permit. Permitees must meet the requirements in Provision D of the General Permit which require the development and implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

Furthermore, all storm drain facilities for future development projects would be designed and constructed consistent with the intent of applicable City of Redding Construction Standards outlined in Chapter 16.12 of the Redding Municipal Code, the City of Redding St ormwater Management Program and the City of Redding MS4 General Permit from the RWQCB. These plans and standards incorporate strategies to minimize storm water pollution. Potential water quality (non -point source pollutants) impacts would also be reduced by the implementation of several General Plan 2045 policies.

Goals and policies in the Natural Resources Element and Public Facilities and Services Element in combination with other State and federal regulations, would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The City produces groundwater from 16 wells in the Redding Groundwater Basin, w hich underlies about 544 square miles in the north end of the Sacramento Valley. Groundwater made up 23 percent of City of Redding water supplies in 2020 and is forecast to be about 30 percent of supplies in 2045.

During preparation of the Groundwater Management Plan for the Redding Groundwater Basin, updated in 2007, the Shasta County Water Agency determined that the Redding Groundwater Basin is very resilient and able to meet all reasonably expected demand. Furthermore, according to the 2022 draft Enterprise and Anderson Groundwater Sustainability Plans ( GSPs), both subbasins have the groundwater resources available to meet current and projected water supply commitments.

The goals and policies in the Natural Resources Element in combination with State and federal regulations, like the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ( SGMA), would ensure that groundwater resources are sustainably managed and would reduce groundwater impacts to a less than significant level.

Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 38 -

Some urban development allowed by the Gener al Plan Update would use groundwater. In addition, new construction could include impervious surfaces, which would decrease the area available for rainfall to infiltrate the ground and recharge the underlying water table. Additionally, the General Plan Update contains policies designed to maintain groundwater supplies and sustain groundwater resources. For example, Policy NR1B directs the City to c ontinue to improve compliance with the RWQCB’s regulations and standards and work with local, state, and federal agencies and private watershed organizations to maintain, protect, and improve water quality and quantity. Policy NR3A directs the City to prioritize and strive to 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. Policy NR3C directs the City to continue to support efforts to periodically review and maintain the Redding Basin Water Resources Management Plan that addresses long-term sustainability of the resource.

The goals and policies in the Natural Resources Element in combination with State and federal regulations, like the SGMA, would ensure that groundwater resources are sustainably managed and would reduce groundwater impacts to a less than significant level.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related as 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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 imperv ious 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 run off 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.

Erosion, Siltation, and On- and Off-Site Flooding
Alterations to drainage patterns during and following construction allowed by the General Plan Update have the potential to result in construction- related increased runoff and erosion problems. However, new development under the General Plan Update would be subject to several state and local regulations that would ensure future development would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site resulting increased runoff and erosion. For example, future development would be required to request coverage un der the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Service ( NPDES) General Permit, Order No. Water Quality Order No. 2009 -0000-Division of Water Quality ( DWQ) (as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ), if the proposed project would result in one or more acres of land disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the MS4 General Permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared. The SWPPP would specify BMPs to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 39 -

topsoil), from moving offsite. Additionally, pursuant to RMC Chapter 16.12, Clearing, Grading, Fills and Excavation, applicable projects would be required to submit grading plans, which would be accompanied by a soils engineering report, engineering geotechnical report, and drainage calculations, to obtain the required grading permits.

Furthermore, several policies from the Community Development and Design Element, Public Facilities Element, and Public Safety Element would reduce impac ts to erosion and flooding . For example, Policy CDD5A directs the City to c onsider the development of a stormwater detention master plan and development standards that would identify adequate locations for feasible regional and neighborhood detention and related facilities. Policy PF8A establishes thresholds for stormwater drainage facilities. Policy PF8B directs the City to work toward constructing stormwater detention/retention basins at strategic locations to minimize current flooding risk. Policy PF8C encourages coordination with Shasta County and the City of Shasta Lake to participate in the City's stormwater systems that may be available and/or participate in the development of a system of regional detention facilities that will complement the City’s system. Policy HS2J requires development to adhere to the requirements of the City’s NPDES MS4 Permit.

Stormwater Drainage and Runoff
Development allowed by the General Plan Update would result in more impervious surfaces, thereby increasing stormwater runoff to levels that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. However, new development under the General Plan Update would be subject to several state and local regulations that would ensure future development would not result in significant impacts to stormwater drainage systems. For example, the City’s Stormwater Management Program and Chapter 14.19, Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, ensures that development comply with compliance with the State CGP an d the MS4 Phase II General Permit by requiring approval of grading plans by the City engineering department.

Furthermore, the General Plan Update includes several policies from the Community Development and Design Element, Public Facilities Element, and Public Safety Element that would reduce impacts to stormwater drainage, as described on page 5.10-26 of the DEIR.

The General Plan policies discussed above, in conjunction with the City’s Stormwater Management Program and Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance would reduce stormwater capacity impacts to a less than significant level.

Impediment or Redirection of Flooding
Redding contains areas designated as 100 -year and 500-year flood zones, as shown on Figure 5.10 -3, Flood Zones Map, on page 5.10-17 from the DEIR, and the General Plan Update land use map allows development within these flood hazard areas. However, such development would be subject to Chapter

18.51 of the RMC, the Floodplain Overlay District, which ensures that all deve lopment permits are reviewed for compliance with the flood control measures outlined in the chapter. Chapter 18.51 generally prohibits development within the floodway. Additionally, several policies from the Public Facilities and Services Element and Public Safety Element would reduce impacts to flooding , as described on page 5.10-28 of the DEIR.

Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 40 -

Therefore, although the General Plan Update could allow the placement of structures in the 100-year flood hazard zone, the General Plan Update policies discussed above, in combination with the City’s Floodplain Overlay District Ordinance and Floodplain Management Program, and other State and federal regulations, would ensure that the impact of impedance and redirection of flood waters would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the alteration of an existing drainage pattern of a site or area. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were req uired to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

HYD-4: The proposed project would not be in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Flood Hazards
Redding contains areas within the 100-year and 500 -year flood zones and development would be allowed in those areas under the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update includes several policies from the Public Facilities and Services Element and Public Safety Element that ensure development minimizes potential flood impacts, as described on page 5.10-31 of the DEIR. With the implementation of the General Plan Update policies and federal, state, and local regulations, future development pursuant to the General Plan Update would not increase flood hazards associated with flood zones, and impacts would be less than significant.

Tsunami
Redding is over 90 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is well outside of the tsunami inundation zone. No impacts would occur.

Seiches
Released water from a seiche would result in much smaller footprints than that of the dam inundation zones as it does not result in complete dam failure some of the water will remain in the reservoir. While seiches have not been observed in Shasta Dam or Whiskeytown Dam, it could potentially occur, most likely from a landslide or seismically induced landslide from the hills around Shasta Lake or Whiskeytown Lake, which could displace a mass of soil and bedrock that would fall or flow downslope into the lakes. This would cause a seiche wave. However, as discussed above, development in the city within floodplains would be subject to Chapter 18.51, Floodplain Overlay District, of the RMC.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 41 -

HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Impact HYD-1 details measures in place to ensure future development has a less than significant impact on surface and groundwater quality. These measures would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or grou ndwater sustainable plan. As discussed in Impact HYD-2, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Finding. The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to conflicts with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

10. Land Use and Planning
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not divide an established community.

Division of an established community commonly occurs because of development and construction of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. As part of the proposed project, the Redding Planning Area (P A) would be modified to generally match the boundaries of the City’s current SOI. While this would eliminate large areas to the east of the City in the Stillwater Creek basin, the Montgomery Ranch area in the southwest section, the Walker Mine Ro ad area in the northwest section from the PA, and the Churn Creek Bottom area would remain with the PA. Also proposed are several changes to the General Plan “growth areas” to focus on infill development as opposed to outward urban expansion. This action would not constitute a division of an existing community.

The policies of the proposed General Plan would improve not only connectivity but compatibility between existing and future development. The primary goals of the General Plan Update are to focus growth within the current City limits; provide incentives for higher -density development and mixed- use projects, both in Downtown and other key locations; encourage infill and controlling the development and expansion of strip commercial; concentrate the growth of regional shopping facilities in relatively few locations; and provide neighborhood shopping near residences to make the neighborhoods more walkable and bikeable.

No aspect of the proposed General Plan Update would divide the existing city. In addition, the updated General Plan includes provisions that directly address land use connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing neighborhoods and land uses. Thus, the General Plan Update would result in no impact regarding division of an established community or land use compatibility issues.

Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 42 -

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the implementation of the proposed project would not divide an established community .

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
While the proposed General Plan 2045 is the primary planning document for the City of Redding and the proposed update is intended to ensure consistency with federal and state laws, implementation of the General Plan 2045 has the potential to conflict with “land use” plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

California Housing Element Law
The City of Redding 2020- 2028 Housing Element was adopted in 2020. The General Plan 2045 Community Development and Design Element incl udes policies that require decision makers to support adequate housing in Redding , as des cribed on page 5.11-27 of the DEIR. Accordingly, the General Plan 2045 would not conflict with or be inconsistent with State Housing Law resulting in a significant environmental impact.

Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission
The City of Redding’s SOI is regulated by the Shasta County LAFCO, and any proposed jurisdictional boundary changes, including annexations and detachments of territory to and/or from the City, is subject to the Shasta County LAFCO review and approval. The Shasta County LAFCO also must review any contractual service agreements and determine the SOI. Although the City does not propose to annex or de -annex any areas of the SOI as part of the General Plan 2045, annexation proposals could occur during the buildout horizon of the proposed General Plan. Any annexations must be consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan and all appropriate City development standards and must be processed under an application funded fully by the applicant that includes “pre -zoning” for the subject area and that may also include a development agreement.

The General Plan 2045 Community Development and Design Element includes goals and policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider infrastructure, public safety an d other impacts that may result from annexations to the City, as described on page 5.11-28 of the DEIR. The Community Development and Design Element also identifies Primary and Secondary Growth Areas that serve to guide future annexations to areas where se rvices can be more efficiently provided .

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Shasta LAFCO policies.

Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region While the 2018 RTP/SCS is not intended to override local land use control, it provides guidance to the local agencies such as Redding that focuses on achieving the State’s GHG and VMT reduction goals by prioritizing growth in strategic growth areas. As discussed above under the subheading “California Housing Element Law,” the General Plan 2045 includes goals and policies that promote Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 43 -

the provision of housing in the City, particularly in infill areas. Refer to Table 5.8 -6, RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR for a consistency analysis of the proposed project and the goals in the RTP /SCS. Accordingly, the General Plan 2045 would not conflict with or be inconsistent with the SRTA’s 2018 RTP/SCS.

Redding Airport Plans
Redding contains two public -use airports––the Redding Regional Airport and the Benton Airpark.

Land use compatibility with these airports is regulated by the Shasta County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Shasta County ALUC adopted a Specific Plan in 1982 for the 8,500 -acre planning area surrounding the Redding Regional Airport. The Westside Area Plan/Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Benton Airpark was adopted in 1992 and addresses the airport operations and impacts on adjoining land uses. Development of land and changes in land use around the airport must be consistent with these plans. The General Plan 2045 Public Facilities and Services Element includes several policies that require lo cal planning and development decisions to consider impacts from development near the airport, as described on page 5.11-31 of the DEIR.

The General Plan 2045 does not propose any changes to the current land uses in the Planning Area and land uses within the influence areas of the airports would continue to comply with the adopted comprehensive land use plans and other applicable airport plans. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with the Redding airport plans.

Summary
In summary, the proposed project is the primary planning document for the City of Redding . The proposed General Plan Update is intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan and federal, state, and local laws. As described above, the proposed project would not conflict with any relevant planning documents and contains policies that would support the efforts of these documents. As such, the impacts are less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any impacts.

11. Mineral Resources
MIN-1: The proposed project woul d 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.

Future development allowed under the General Plan Update 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. Areas of identified mineral resource significance are classified as MRZ -2a or MRZ-2b, as shown on Figure

5.12-1, Locally Designated Mineral Resource Areas in Redding, on page 5.12-5 of the DEIR. Although most Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 44 -

areas along the Sacramento River are classified as MRZ- 2a or MRZ -2b, the presence of existing incompatible development will preclude mineral extraction activities in most locations. Furthermore, the City prioritizes mineral resource protection efforts in areas along Clear Creek and the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Churn Creek. Areas classified as MRZ- 2a or MRZ-2b are included as part of the City’s Mineral Resources Overlay District, as shown in Figure 5.12 -1 of the DEIR, and are areas where mineral extraction activities are considered feasible. The purpose of this overlay district is to provide sites for mineral resource extraction activities in the overlay area, ensure that appropriate and compatible uses are allowed, ensure that there is an ultimate reuse plan, prevent adjacent uses from being impacted, and consider protection of mineral resources in the development process.

The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan includes several policies that address mineral resources impacts, as described on page 5.12-9 of the DEIR. The City’s Mineral Resource s Overlay District in combination with the proposed General Plan policies discussed above would ensure that potential mineral resource impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to 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 delineat ed on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

12. Noise
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.

There are two airports in the City of Redding, Redding Municipal Airport (Redding Regional Airport) and Benton Airpark. The noise contours of these airports are shown in Figure 5.13-3, Redding Municipal Airport Noise Contours, on page 5.13-5 of the DEIR and Figure 5.13-4, Benton Airpark Noise Contours, on page 5.13-6 of the DEIR , respectively. Future development of noise -sensitive land uses could be located in areas that exceed the 60 dBA CNEL. Noise element policy N -2F would require new development in the vicinity of Redding Municipal Airport and Benton Airpark to comply with the noise standards of the Master Plan for each facility. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relat ed to excessive airport -related noi se. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 45 -

13. Population and Housing
PH-1: Implementation of the proposed project would direct ly result in population growth in the project area.

One of the purposes of a general plan is to adequately plan for and accommodate future growth. As shown in Table 3-2, 2045 General Plan Planning Horizon Forecast , in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the DEIR, growth under the General Plan 2045 would result in an increase of 8,066 housing units and 9,781 jobs within the City and SOI. As a result of the 8,066 projected housing units, Redding would be expected to experience a growth of 19,439 additional res idents based on the Department of Finance’s average persons per household of 2.41 for the City of Redding in 2020. A project would induce unplanned population growth if it conflicted with a local land use plan (e.g., a General Plan) and induced growth in areas that are not addressed in a General Plan or other land use plan. The General Plan 2045 does not propose any changes to existing land use designations and zoning that would induce additional population. The growth projections shown in Table 3-2 of the DEIR, reflect the growth that is expected to occur in the city over the next 22 years under existing land uses and incorporates approved/pending projects in the City, as determined under the ShastaSIM travel demand model. When compared to the forecasted population in SRTA’s Model Development Report for the City in 2040, the General Plan 2045 would result in 6,974 additional residents in the city by 2045. It should be noted that growth under the General Plan 2045 would not be considered “unplanned” as the ShastaSIM projections are based on the General Plan.

Development of housing units to accommodate anticipated growth has potential to result in significant environmental impacts. Future development under the General Plan 2045 would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with General Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions.

Mitigation measures would be implemented as necessary to ensure that increases in population do not have an adverse impact on the environment or on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to substantial unplanned population growth. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

PH-2: Project implementation would not result in displacing a substantial number of people and/or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Implementation of proposed project is not expected to result in the displacement of a substantial number of housing units. Under the proposed project, the General Plan Diagram (i.e., land use map) would not be modified and the existing land use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected. Therefore, parcels designated for residential uses would not change. Within identified “Opportunity Areas” the project envisions incentivizing aging strip commercial areas to be redeveloped in a mixed-use manner, thereby increasing housing opportunities and providing updated neighborhood amenities and employment opportunities.

Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 46 -

The City’s Housing Element includes policies calling for the development of housing units, such as Policy H1A, which encourages the private rehabilitation of housing, Policy H2C, which calls for the provision of incentives to encourage development of affordable housing, and Policy H2H, whic h promotes infill development. Compliance with these policies would encourage the development of housing, thereby ensuring that residents and housing are not displaced. Additionally, Government Code Section 66300(d)(2) requires that any project that would demolish residential units must create at least as many units as will be demolished.

As such, the proposed project would not displace residents or housing. The proposed project could potentially result in the development of additional housing units in areas that did not previously accommodate housing, such as the “Opportunity Areas.” The proposed project would not redesignate land currently designated for residential uses to non-residential uses. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as the project implementation would not result in displacing a substantial number of people and/or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

14. Public Services 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.

Increased demands for fire protection and emergency medical services result from increases in the number of people who reside, work, and recreate in Redding, but can also be related to the type, location, and configuration of land uses. The General Plan Update anticipates that the City's permanent population will increase by approximately 19,439 residents over the next 22 years. Additionally, the General Plan Update anticipates an increase in the number of businesses that will be operating in Redding, including a broad range of commercial, industrial, and warehouse/distribution businesses.

As a result, additional staff and equipment would be required to maintain or achieve desired response times. It is likely that new or expanded facilities would be required, which could include new firehouses or outdoor training areas, depending on the extent to which Redding Fire Department RFD would be required to expand capacity. It is not known at what time or location such facilities would be required in Redding or what the exact nature of these facilities would be. New or expanded facility locations will be influenced by population growth to serve residents. As a result, it cannot be determined what project-specific environmental impacts would occu r from their construction and operation. These potential impacts would be identified during the facility site selection process.

The proposed General Plan Update contains policies that aim to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical response services to serve existing and new development. Policy CDD2A in the proposed Community Design and Development Element requires construction of private Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 47 -

development projects to be coordinated with the timing and location of public services and requires that through a combination of development fees and other appropriate funding mechanisms that development pays its fair share of the costs of upgrading existing facilities and/or constructing/providing new facilities and services as determined by the direct impacts that such development has on these essential services. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed project does not propose any land use actions or development that would induce population growth. As a result of the proposed policies, fire protection service impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the addition of approximately new 19,439 residents from development throughout the Planning Area. Upon implementation of the General Plan Update, the Redding Police Department would strive to maintain appropriate staffing to ensure compliance with local and regional standards for response time and coverage. In correspondence with police chief Bill Schueller, it was noted that as the City’s population increases, additional staff will be required. Chief Schueller estimates that is an additional 10 officers for patrol (two beats) during the life of this EIR.

This increase in demand for police services would be met through the hiring of additional staff, as needed, which would be funded through existing funding mechanisms, such as the general fund revenue and grant funding. Additionally, several policies included in the General Plan Update would strive to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. For example, Policy CDD2B would ensure that all new developments shall maintain adequate service levels for existing development while providing for the upgrade/expansion of existing public services as appropriate. Policy PF2A directs the City to achieve adequate police services based on the metrics of response times, demand for police services, and coverage needs based on geographic area. Policy PF2B directs the City to provide police facilities for sufficient law enforce services.

As new development occurs, new or expanded police facilities would be needed to support the associated population growth. It is not known at this point when such facilities would be required or what the exact nature of these facilities would be. As a result, it cannot be determined what project - specific environmental impacts would occur from their construction and operation. The potential impacts would be identified during the facility planning process. Therefore, impacts related to police services would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 48 -

cause significant environmental impacts to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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 ratio s or other performance objectives.

Population growth foreseeable under the proposed General Plan could cause the need for new or expanded facilities, staff, or infrastructure within the eight school districts that serve Redding. While the locations of some new or expanded facilities are not currently known at this time, the Pacheco Union School District has a reserved site in the Shastina Ranch area at 5372 Shasta View Drive in the City. Project-specific environmental impacts would occur from future construction and operation at this potential school site and others and would be identified during the development process for each school site. Additionally, existing regulations such as California Government Code Sections 65995 (h) and 65996 (b) provide mitig ation for impacts to school facilities. Such mitigation measures include fees, charges, or requirements levied against construction, pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code.

Furthermore, the General Plan 2045 contains a number of policies that provide for adequate public - school facilities to meet future demand. Policy CDD2D directs the City to work with school districts and public and quasi-public agencies as appropriate in determining the location of needed sites in the planning area for new insti tutional development and facilities by reserving sites as a condition of development approval in accordance with the State law. Policy CDD11D also promotes stronger neighborhood/ school partnerships, including joint use of City and school facilities wherever feasible.

Furthermore, Chapter 16.24 of the Redding Municipal Code directs school districts to levy fees on development in school districts that have been determined to be overcrowded, would reduce impacts to less than significant per Section 65996 of t he California Government Code. As a result of the proposed policies, and consistent with State law on the determination of impacts to school facilities, school impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than sig nificant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The General Plan 2045 would result in an increase in population and, thus, library usage in Redding.

Shasta Public Library notes that its ability to meet service levels for current demand of new books and programming is exceeded. To meet the recommended service levels, Shasta Public Library may require Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 49 -

up to 11,829 square feet of additional building space in addition to an increased budget to meet demand for current and future books and programming needs. The department notes that it has no plans for expansion at this time. As a result, it cannot be determined what project-specific environmental impacts would occur from the construction and operation of future facilities. These potential impacts would be identified during the facility site selection process.

The General Plan 2045 includes policies and actions that seek to ensure that adequate services and facilities are funded to meet increasing demand. Policy CDD2B of the Community Development and Design Element would ensure that all new developments shall maintain adequate service levels for existing developments while providing f or the upgrade/expansion of existing public services as appropriate.

Additionally, the proposed Public Facilities and Services Element includes several goals and policies that aim to increase the quality and service of the library system. For example, Pol icy PF12A directs the City to maintain a library system that adapts to technological changes, enhances library services, expands access to digital information and the internet, and meets community and library system needs.

As a result of the proposed policies, library service impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of w hich could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

The growth forecasted under the proposed General Plan would result in an estimated population of 137,377 residents in the City and SOI by 2045, increasing the existing population in the city and SOI from 117,938 in 2020. This increase in population would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities.

The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan recognizes that the construction of the planned parks and recreation facilities will depend on the availability of funding. Under the assump tion that all planned parks will be developed, the City’s level of service for parks and recreation facilities would be

6.95 acres per 1,000 residents by 2045 under the proposed General Plan. To meet the City’s 10 acres per 1,000 residents service goal , approximately 419 acres of parkland would be required to serve the 2045 population.

The City will continue to update its Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan as necessary to ensure that enough parkland is available to meet the needs of its residents and the meet the established General Plan goal . The proposed General Plan also includes several policies that would promote the development of new park facilities and help to fund them. Policy R6 directs the City to continue to require both residential and commercial development to pay impact fees for their fair share of the costs of constructing/providing new facilities so that new development maintains the current service level of park facilities. Policy R10A also directs the City to adjust park-development fees regularly to reflect Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 50 -

current park-development costs. Furthermore, this General Plan Update does not include any changes to the City’s land use designations that would induce population growth beyond what expected to occur in the City over the next 22 years. Therefore, the proposed project will be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recrea tional facilities.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

REC-2: The proposed project would not include recreational facil ities or require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

The General Plan 2045 would result in development that would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. This would likely result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. However, the locations of such facilities are not known currently. As a result, it cannot be determined what project-specific environmental impacts would occur from their construction and operation. These potential impacts would be identified during the facility site selection process.

In addition, the General Plan 2045 includes policies and actions that would help ensure that parkland goals are met. Policies R3A, R5A, R5C, R5F, R5I ensure that new parkland and recreational facilities are developed to accommodate the growing population. Additionally, Policies R5K, R6B, R6C, R6D, R10A, and R10B ensure that park and recreational facilities are funded.

As a result of the proposed policies, parks and recreation facility impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the proposed project would not include recreational f acilities or require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

15. 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.

Local programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that address the City’s transportation system are include the 2018 Shasta County RTP/SCS for the Shasta Region, the Redding Active Transportation Plan (ATP), the Redding Area Bus Authority Short Range Transit Plan, Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic of the Redding Municipal Code, and the Redding Complete Streets Policy. As shown in Figures 10 through 12 of the proposed Transportation Element, all planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be consistent with the Redding ATP. The proposed roadway improvements would also be consistent with the improvements identified in the 2018 RTP/SCS.

The proposed Transportation Element focuses on developing a transportation system that meets the needs of all segments of the population through a complete streets approach. This includes increasing Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 51 -

options for alternative transportation (public transit, walking, and bicycling); ensuring that pedestrian and bicycle systems connect residential neighborhoods to public facilities and services, schools, parks, and shopping areas; and other means to develop a multi -modal transportation system that meets the needs of all members of the community. As shown in Figures 10 through 12 of the proposed Transportation Element, all planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be consistent with the Redding ATP. The proposed roadway improvements would also be consistent with the improvements identified in the 2018 RTP/SCS.

The City’s Community Design and Development Element also supports alternative transportation by promoting infill and mixed -use development, increasing residential densities along major traffic corridors and near employment opportunities and shopping, and encouraging circulation improvements that promote community connectivity. The goals and policies of the proposed Elements are therefore consistent with the regional goals and strategies expressed in the 2018 RTP/SCS.

Discretionary projects are reviewed on a case -by-case basis according to the Redding Tr affic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would have a beneficial effect on the City’s transportation system by enhancing safety on the roadway system and promoting alternative travel modes, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation systems. There would be no impact.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact as it would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circula tion system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities . Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not generate VMT levels inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT.

Impact TRANS -2 evaluates whether the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which describes specific considerations for analyzing transportation impacts as amended on July 1, 2020, pursuant to SB 375. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is “generally” the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.

No particular methodology or metric is mandated by Section 15064.3(b) and the methodology or metric is left to the lead agency, bearing in mind the criteria the legislature had in mind for determining the significance of transportation impacts in SB -743. These were expressed in Public Resource Code section 21099(b)(1), which states: “[t]hose criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The assessment of VMT impacts for this EIR under Impact TRANS -2 was conducted by GHD utilizing the Shasta County activity -based travel demand model (ShastaSIM) that was developed and maintained by Shasta Regional Trans portation Agency ( SRTA). ShastaSIM is an advanced activity - based tour model that simulates the travel behavior of all residents in Shasta County over the course of a typical 24-hour weekday. The results of GHD’s VMT analysis using the ShastaSIM are shown on Table 5.16-3, Redding 2020 and 2045 VMT Summary, on page 5.16-38 of the DEIR.

Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 52 -

Significance Threshold
In December 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released its final Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. For residential and office projects, OPR recommends that a reduction of 15% or more in the regional rate of VMT should be the target for land use projects such as residential, office, and retail.

Based on the OPR’s 15% reduction recommendation, Impact TRANS-2 would be considered potentially significant if the forecasted rate of VMT per Resident for the City of Redding and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) under Year 2045 conditions with implementation of the proposed Project were to exceed 85 percent of the baseline (year 2020) regional rate of VMT per Resident for Shasta County.

Based on the baseline countywide rate of VMT per Resident (18.3) as shown in Table 5.16 -3, of the DEIR. Impact TRANS-2 would be considered significant if the rate of VMT per Resident attributable to Redding and its SOI were to exceed 15.6 VMT per Resident.

Findings
This analysis found that the forecasted rate of VMT per Resident under Year 2045 conditions with the proposed General Plan 2045 is 14.7 VMT per Resident within the City limits, and 15.6 VMT per Resident within the City and SOI, which would not exceed the threshold. This finding is consistent with the 2018 RTP/SCS which noted that Redding has the lowest rate of VMT per capita in Shasta County, and the shortest average trip lengths in the County, reflecting the proximity of homes, jobs and services within Redding. This impact is less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to VMT impacts. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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).

Roadway hazards are typically assessed at the project level. Potential hazards associated with future development projects would be analyzed and eva luated in detail through the project -specific environmental review process or during project application review. Prior to the construction of streets, highways, alleys, traffic signals, and related public improvements the City of Redding Public Works Department reviews and needs to approve plans according to construction standards and specifications. Additionally, the Redding Local Road Safety Plan will continue to help to guide improvements to the local roadway system based on existing gaps needs.

While growth within the Planning Area would result in changes to the existing transportation network, the proposed General Plan 2045 Transportation Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to transportation facilities. The following General Plan policies would support the design of a transportation system that is safe for all modes of travel. The following policies could directly and indirectly result in improving the transportation network , as described on page 5.16-39 of the DEIR.

Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 53 -

Implementation of these policies would promote the design of improvements to the transportation network that are safe for all modes of travel. Compliance with State regulations on roadway and facility design, materials, and signage would further minimize this impact. Implementation of proposed project would not result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or actions or otherwise increase hazards due to a design feature that may have a significant impact on the environment and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relat ed to an increase hazard due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

TRANS-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Future potential developments which could occur during the buildout of the proposed General Plan would alter land use patterns and increase travel demand on the transportation network that may influence emergency access. Like roadway hazards, emergency access is typically assessed at the project level, and potential impacts to emergency access associated with future development projects would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the environmental review process or during project application review. Prior to the construction of streets, highwa ys, alleys, traffic signals, and related public improvements, the City of Redding P ublic Works Department reviews and needs to approve plans according to construction standards and specifications to ensure adequate emergency access .

This may include applying for an encroachment permit and other requirements outlined in the Temp Traffic Control Plan Guidelines for projects that involve working in the City of Redding right of way.

While growth within the Planning Area would result in changes to land use and the existing transportation network, the proposed General Plan 2045 Public Safety Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider improvements to transportation efficiency, mobility, and access including developing and updating emergency response plans. The following describes the policies that directly and indirectly result in providing emergency access , as described on page 5.16-40 of the DEIR.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than signific ant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to inadequate emergency access. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 54 -

16. 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.

Under the proposed project, existing la nd use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As the City continues to grow, it would ensure that all new development is provided wastewater services and all environmental impacts associated with the expansion or development of wastewater treatment facilities, if applicable, are evaluated. Planning and construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities to accommodate new development is an on-going process for any area where future growth is anticipated.

In correspondence with the City of Redding Public Work’s Department, it was noted that the department currently meets the wastewater treatment and collection demands of its service area. The department notes that depending on the area of growth, a modeling assessment of the projected flows and an evaluation of the loading at the respective treatment plants would be required in order to determine what infrastructure improvements would be needed. The department recommends continuing to conduct a Utility Master Plan update every 10 years to evaluate the collection system and treatment facilities for future needs. In addition, the Department notes the importance of designing a rate structure and impact fee program sufficient revenue for future projects as growth occurs.

As stated in the 2022 Wastewater Utility Master Plan, improvements would be made to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system for both the Clear Creek and Stillwater service areas.

Improvements include, but are not limited to, upgrading old pipelines, increasing the diameter size of pipes, and increasing the capacities of collection facilities. As such, these improvements could increase the City’s ability to collect and treat increased wastewater generated under the proposed project.

Moreover, the proposed General Plan 2045 includes the following policies from the Public Facilities Element that require all new development to be served by the City’s wastewater system and provide standards for assessing the impacts from future development, as described on page 5.17 -13 of the DEIR. This EIR is a programmatic document and does not evaluate the environmental impacts of any project-specific development. Any new or expanded wastewater facilities, if needed, would be considered a project -specific development and would come under the direct regulatory authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additionally, such projects would be analyzed in accordance with CEQA.

In conjunction with applicable state regulatory requirements and the proposed General Plan Update polices, implementation of the proposed project would be adequately served by wastewater treatment facilities by ensuring sufficient capacity is available to serve the proposed project’s demand. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact relat ed to new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Accordingly, no changes or Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 55 -

alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

Development allowed by the General Plan 2045 would generate increased amounts of wastewater in the City. However, several policies included in the General Plan 2045 would ensure that the City’s wastewater treatment system will have adequate capacity to meet future demand. These include the following policies that aim to sufficiently fund the City’s wastewater treatment system, as described on page 5.17-14 of the DEIR.

As noted in impact UTIL-1, the City of Redding Public Work's Depar tment is currently meeting the wastewater treatment and collection demands of its service area. However, if growth occurs, a modeling assessment of projected flows and loading at the respective treatment plants would be needed. In addition, as with the project-level analysis, any new or expanded wastewater facilities would be subject to project-specific review under CEQA and the direct regulatory authority of the RWQCB and would require a Report of Waste Discharge to be filed and issuance of new or modified Waste Discharge Requirements by the RWQCB.

The processes and requirements described in this section would ensure that the proposed project does exceed the City’s wastewater utility’s ability to meet current and future commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to 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. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

UTIL-3: Water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet project requirements.

Under the proposed project, existing land use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected. As such , implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As the City continues to grow, the City would ensure that all new development is provided water services and all environmental impacts associated with the expansion or development of wastewater treatment facilities, if applicable, is evaluated. Planning and construction of new or expanded water facilities to accommodate new development is an on-going process for any area where future growth is anticipated.

As indicated in Table 5.1 7-1, City of Redding Projected Water Supply and Demand, on page 5.17-23, Table

5.17-2, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (Redding Water Utility) , on page 5.17 -24, and Table 5.17- 3, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand (Redding Water Utility) , on page 5.17 -24 of the DEIR, the City’s water supplies would exceed the demand under normal, single -dry, and multiple dry years from 2025 through 2045. Therefore, the City’s water supplies could accommodate the proposed project as no Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 56 -

land use changes would occur. However, as noted above, Centerville C ommunity Services District (CSD) and Bella Vista Water District (BVWD), which serve portions of the Planning Area, are reliant on water supply from the Central Valley Project which has been experiencing chronic shortages due to the recent draught. 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 CVP contract to be assured water. Centerville CSD serves a very limited portion of west Redding and did not indicate concerns with supplying water to new development within the City of Redding.

In correspondence with the Cit y of Redding Public Work’s Department, it was noted that the Department currently meets its water supply, treatment, and distribution demands for its service area.

The department notes that surface water supplies are adequate for the proposed project’s pla nned horizon year. However, additional groundwater may be needed to increase water supply thus new groundwater wells and storage tank( s) are included in the Utility Master Plan. The department recommends continuing to conduct a Utility Master Plan update e very 10 years to evaluate the distribution system and treatment facilities for future needs. In addition, the Department notes the importance of designing a rate structure and impact fee program to ensure sufficient revenue for future projects as growth oc curs. With respect to future water service for those areas of the City that are within the BVWD, City staff indicates that agreement(s) are currently being negotiated that would allow the City to provide groundwater to the District to offset new development as conditions require.

Adequate system interties are available for this purpose.

The proposed General Plan 2045 includes policies from the Public Facilities and Services Element that require that all new development to construct or provide a fair sha re contribution toward the construction of any off -site improvements (Policies PF1A and PF1B); direct the City to program planned expansion activities, when demand at an existing treatment plant reaches within 10 percent plant capacity, maintain reservoir capacity at 20 percent of maximum day demand, and develop additional water supplies from wells at least two years prior to a projected water deficit (Policy PF4A); require the City to consider implementation of water conservation strategies and programs and provide incentives to developments that adopt efficiency measures for water use (Policy PF4G); and require the City to periodically update the City’s Water Master Plan to reflect changes to the General Plan General Plan Diagram, water use pattern changes, supply, regulatory changes, or other circumstances (Policy PF4E).

Moreover, if water system improvements are needed, additional project-specific environmental analysis would be completed pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water supplies and facilities.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to water supply and delivery systems. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 57 -

UTIL-5: Existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the proposed project.

Under the proposed project, existing land use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm drainage systems or expansion of existing systems. The City would ensure that all new development is within the capacity of the storm drainage system, and all environmental impacts associated with the expansion or development of storm drain systems, if applicable, is evaluated. Planning and construction of new or expanded storm drain systems to accommodate new development is an on-going process for any area where future growth is anticipated.

Compliance with Chapter 14.18, Storm Drainage Utility, and Chapter 14.19, Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Redding Municipal Code, would ensure that the City's storm drain system is adequate to capture stormwater and that the City's stormwater conveyance system would reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges. The City's Stormwater Resource Plan would provide ongoing identification and prioritization of stormwater capture projects which would ensure the City's storm drains are in adequate condition.

Additionally, the proposed General Plan Update includes several policies from the C ommunity Development and Design Element and Public Facilities and Services Element that would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts related to stormwater, as described on page 5.17-42 of the DEIR.

Moreover, if storm drain improvements are needed, additional project-specific environmental analysis would be completed pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on storm drain facilities.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant dir ect, indirect, and cumulative impact related to existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems . Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

UTIL-7: Existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate project - generated solid waste.

Solid waste generated under the proposed project would be disposed of at West Central Landfill. Under the proposed project, existing land use classifications and configurations would remain unaffected.

Additionally, during construction, future development projects would comply with CALGreen requirements, specifically recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste generated during most “new construction” projects.

Section 74 -04.006, Amendments to CalGreen Building Standards Code, amends Section 5.408.1, Construction Waste Management, to include 2022 CalGreen requirements.

The proposed Public Facilities and Services Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts related to solid waste and solid waste facilities. The following General Plan policies would serve to minimize potentia l adverse impacts related to solid waste, as described on page 5.17-49 of the DEIR.

Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 58 -

All new developments proposed under the proposed project, such as the addition or expansion of solid waste facilities, if needed, would be subject to subsequent project -level CEQA review. Construction activities would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the existing and/or proposed facilities for project-generated solid waste. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

UTIL-8: The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

The proposed project would comply with the CALGreen Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Furthermore, the proposed project would also comply with the requirements of AB 341 that mandates recycling for commercial land uses.

Additionally, any organic waste generated in amounts over a certain threshold would be recycled in accordance with AB 1826. In addition, SB 1383 requires every jurisdiction to p rovide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. The regulations aim to divert 75 percent of organic waste from landfills below 2014 levels by 2025. Compliance with this statue would reduce organic waste.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

17. Wildfire
WILD-3: The General Plan 2045 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.

Buildout of the proposed General Plan could result in additional infrastructure, such as roadways and transmission lines, in underdeveloped and undeveloped areas of the Planning Area in order to serve new development. Some of this new infrastructure would likely be constructed in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). These types of improvements would involve temporary construction and result in changes to the existing built environment. The installation and operation of new aboveground power transmission lines would create a higher risk of exacerbating wildfire risks compared to other infrastructure.

Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 59 -

However, several policies in the Community Development and Design Element direct the City to underground new and existing electrical transmission lines. For example, Policy CDD18A directs the placement of new electric distribution lines underground in new development where feasible. Policy CDD18C directs the City to consider establishing a mechanism to systematically replace underground distribution lines in existing neighborhoods and commercial areas as funding sources are identified.

Additionally, the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC) requires maintenance of vegetation around power lines, strict wire-to-wire clearances, annual inspections of aboveground power lines, and the preparation of fire prevention plans for aboveground power lines in high fire -threat districts. In addition, the Redding Electric Utility ( REU) Wildfire Mitigation Plan establishes r equirements for vegetation management around power equipment. These measures would reduce the wildfire risks associated with the installation and maintenance of power lines.

Any development or redevelopment in the wildfire-prone areas of the City would also be required to comply with building and design standards in the California Building Code (CBC) and California Fire Code (CFC), which include provisions for fire-resistant building materials, the clearance of debris, and fire safety requirements during demolition and construction activities. Public Resources Code Section 4291 also requires vegetation around buildings or structures to maintain defensible space within 100 feet of a structure and an ember -resistant zone within 5 feet of a structure. Addition ally, State Responsibility Area (SRA) Fire Safe Regulations would prevent structures from being placed within 30 feet of a roadway, reducing the potential for new roadways to exacerbate wildfire risks. These measures, along with policies and actions in the General Plan 2045 for undergrounding of power lines, creation and maintenance of fuel breaks, and ensuring adequate emergency water supply would minimize wildfire risks associated with the installation and maintenance of infrastructure.

Such infrastructure and maintenance activities would also be required to comply with the adopted State regulations, Redding Municipal Code (RMC) standards, and proposed General Plan policies and actions to mitigate the impact of infrastructure on the environment. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure in areas which could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

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.

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.

Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 60 -

Potential future development under the General Plan 2045 could contribute to post- fire slope instability or drainage changes upstre am. However, proposed Public Safety Element Policy PS1C would require project proponents to determine, as required by the Building Official and/or City Engineer, the landslide, slope-instability, and erosion potential of proposed development sites located in potential hazard areas and utilize building setbacks, grading techniques, or appropriate measures when constructing in or near unstable areas. Policy PS2E limits new development in the 100 -year floodplain, except when if it can be demonstrated that such encroachments will not impact other properties or significantly contribute to a cumulative effect of other encroachments.

Additionally, all new development in the City is required to comply with State and local regulations, such as the CBC and RMC, both of which have provisions. For example, Section 1803 of the 2022 California Building Code requires a geotechnical investigation that must assess existing landslide susceptibility on a project site. The RMC, Chapter 16.12, Clearing, Grading, Fills and Excavation also requires a grading permit to control erosion and slope stability.

Moreover, the proposed General Plan Public Safety Element contains Policy PS1B, requiring geotechnical investigations for development on sites with potential hazards and Policy PS4F, directing the City to facilitate post -fire recovery of open space areas by supporting efforts to stabilize slopes, control erosion, and replant areas with native species as appropriate.

New development complying with these policies and actions in the General Plan 2045 would not expose people or structures to downslope landslides or downstream flooding due to post-fire hazards.

Furthermore, development under the General Plan 2045 must also comply with best management practices regarding wildfire prevent ion, action, and recovery as outlined in the Redding Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and Community Wildfire Mitigation Plan. All future development, regardless of the location, is required to comply with adopted local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing wildfire prevention, which would minimize risks of post-fire hazards. As such, compliance with these policies and regulatory requirements would ensure impacts from post-fire instability would be less than significant.

Finding: The proposed project would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact related to the exposure of 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.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the proposed project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds.

C. Findings on Significant Environmental Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant
The following summary describes impacts of the p roposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the DEIR, these impacts, from Chapter 5, would be considered less than significant.

Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 61 -

1. Geology and Soils
GEO-6: Project development would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature.

Future development allowed under the General Plan Update may result in impacts to paleontological resources or unique geological features. Ground -disturbing activities in sensitive areas may cause damage to or destruction of paleontological resources. Additionally, development of previously undeveloped areas could result in the discovery of paleontological resources, which would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would require consultation with a geologist or paleontologist to make a determination of the paleontological sensitivity of proposed project sites. Mitigation Measure GEO -2 would require additional consultation with a qualified paleontologist to ensure the preservation of paleontological resources in the event that such resources are found during ground disturbance. Federal and state regulations as well as M itigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed, 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 Me asure 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. Signific ant 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.

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the D EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redding hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires projects to consult with geologists or paleontologists to determine the paleontological sensitivity of project sites and if sites are considered highly sensitive , monitoring shall be conducted during grading activities . Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires ground-disturbing activities halt within a 50-feet radius of paleontological discoveries and that discoveries are handled in Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 62 -

accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Mitigation Measures GEO- 1 and GEO-2 would ensure that best practices regarding the discovery and treatment of paleontological resources are followed and therefore impacts to paleontological are mitigated to less than significant.

2. Noise
NOI-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the General Plan may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of ground borne vibration.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities of future projects under the proposed project would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 5.13- 10, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, on page 5.13-37 of the DEIR lists reference vibration levels for construction equipment.

As shown in Table 5.13 -10, of the DEIR, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or histori cal resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future project-level developments under the General Plan are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. As such, this would have a potentially significant impact. However, adoption of Mitigation Measure NOI- 2 would require future projects within certain distances of sensitive building types to prepare noise and vibration analyses and adopt mitigation as necessary to reduce potential noise and vibration impacts to below the FTA thresholds. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2 would reduce vibration impacts associated with construction of future projects under the proposed project to less than significant.

Operational Vibration
Commercial and industrial operations within the Planning Area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. In addition, future sensitive receptors could be placed within close proximity to existing railroad lines through buildout in the plan area.

General Plan Policy N-1E would require new development to generate operation and/or construction vibration levels no greater than 75 Vdb at the property line of a sensitive receptor. However, because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibration-sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources.

Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 63 -

Therefore, with the potential for sensitive uses within the plan area to be exposed to annoying and/or interfering levels of vibration from commercial or industrial operations and existing railroad lines, operations-related vibration impacts associated with implementa tion of the General Plan are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would require new residential projects within 200 feet of existing railroad lines to conduct vibration and noise evaluations consistent with FTA methodology. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would require projects that are potentially capable of generating substantial vibration to conduct noise and vibration analyses related to the operation of the project and adopt mitigation as necessary to reduce such impacts. Implementatio n of Mitigation Measures NOI -3 and NOI -4 would reduce impacts associated with operational vibration sources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

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 drilling 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 required to conduct a ground borne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) -approved methodologies.

NOI-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) p rocess 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.

Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR. These Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 64 -

changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redding hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure N OI-2 requires project applicants to prepare a noise and vibration analys is to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to construction activities and adopt mitigation as necessary to reduce impacts. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requires evaluation of railroad vibrational impacts on proposed residential projects. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 requires a noise and vibration analysis for industrial projects near sensitive uses, such as residential uses , to be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts associated with operations .

Implementation of Mitigation Measure s NOI-2 through NOI -4 would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant.

3. Wildfire
WILD-1: Development under the General Plan 2045 could substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The City of Redding prepared an Emergency Operations Plan ( EOP) to ensure the most effective allocation of resources during times of emergency for the maximum benefit and protection of the population. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and Redding Electric Utility’s (REU’s) Wildfire Mitigation Plan also provide strategies and mitigation measures to address local fire hazards.

Furthermore, the County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) assists the community to define the le vel of risk, assess vulnerability, provide guidance for reducing risks, manage vegetation fuels, increase preparedness, formulate pre-fire response and evacuation plans, and increase community resiliency to allow residents and businesses to return living conditions to normal as quickly as possible. Additional resources from the County, including the Shasta-Trinity Strategic Fire Plan, the Shasta County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Shasta County EOP address the fire hazard responses and mitigation strategies for forestlands surrounding the Redding urban area. The City is actively developing its CWPP and intends to include appropriate provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which is anticipated to be completed in 2024.

The General Plan 2045 has proposed a reduced Planning Area boundary. These changes aim to focus on inward expansion for future growth in Redding and ultimately reduce the amount of fire hazard area lands under the City’s jurisdiction. In addition, no substantive land use changes are propose d under the proposed project. Buildout would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes in the city or SOI, as identified in the City’s LHMP and EOP. The Emergency Management Division of the Redding Fire Depart ment (RFD) coordinates emergency management functions within Redding, and the RFD adheres to the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). During an emergency, standard emergency response procedures of the Redding Police Department and RFD are conducted in tandem.

Future development would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes. To ensure emergency services in the city and SOI are not impaired by future development, all develop ment projects in the city and SOI are reviewed by the RFD, prior to approval. In accordance with the Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 65 -

California Fire Code, the RFD requires site design to consider fire access. Several of these requirements include vegetation management requirements, const ruction standards, and subdivision and building access, among others. New development is required to comply with these regulations to provide sufficient clear emergency vehicle access.

All future development, regardless of whether it includes new developme nt or redevelopment, is required to comply with adopted local, regional, and State plans and regulations addressing emergency access, response, and evacuation. However, even with these requirements, construction of new development or redevelopment could ca use a temporary impairment of an evacuation route due to road closure, and therefore impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure WILD -1 would require future development within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to prepare a Traffic Control Plan to minimize blockage of roadways during the construction period. This would ensure that emergency access within high fire hazard areas of the City’s Planning Area is not obstructed.

Mitigation Measure:

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.

Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environment al effect as identified in the DEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Redding hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding:

Mitigation Measure WILD-1 requires Traffic Control Plans to be submitted to the City for review for development within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. As such, emergency access in areas of the City with higher risk of wildfire hazards would n ot be obstructed during project construction.

Mitigation Measure WILD-1 would therefore mitigate impacts to less than significant.

D. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to Below the Level of Significance
The following describes the unavoidable adverse impacts of the p roposed project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or the mitigation measures are under the control of another lead agency. The following impact would remain significant and unavoidable:

1. A gricultural and Forestry Resources
AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban land use.

Figure 5.2-2, Designated Farmland in the Planning Area, on page 5.2-8 of the DEIR 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 currently zoned to allow non- Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 66 -

agricultural use such as public and residential development. Therefore, developme nt 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 the 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. Therefore, impacts are potentially significant.

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. Prog rams 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 no mitigation measures are feasible, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding: The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible to avoid impacts regarding the conversion of prime farmland to non -agricultural uses. Although the goals, policies, actions, and regulations of proposed General Plan Update would reduce and partially offset the conversion of farmland, the proposed project could result in farmlands of concern under CEQA for non-agricultural uses.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide and statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

AG-3: The proposed project would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

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 timber or related uses and is commercially viable. There are no TPZ lands within the Planning Area of the City.

Table 5.2- 2, Forestland Acreage in Redding SOI , on page 5.2-6of the DEIR, lists the acreage of Oak woodland within the City’s SOI. A discussion of the aesthetic value of Oak woodland can be found in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR. The General Plan Update could result in the conversion of Oak woodlands and other upland habitats for future development. The proposed project would focus Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 67 -

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 . 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 resu lt 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.

Mitigation Measures:

Although the goals and policies of the General Plan Update would help to minimize impacts to loss of woodland and other habitat types, the proposed project could potentially convert forested areas to non-forested uses to accommodate future demand for development. Therefore, no mitigation is feasible, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Finding: The C ity finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible to avoid impacts regarding the conversion of forest land to non-forest use with the implementation of the General Plan Update. Although the goals and policies under the proposed General Plan Update would help to mitigate impacts to loss of forest land, the proposed project would ultimatel y reduce and convert forestland to non-forest land uses to accommodate future demand for development. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

2. Air Quality
AQ-1: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan.

CEQA requires that projects be evaluated for consistency with the applicable air quality management plan(s). Typically, a project is deemed inconsistent with air quality management plans if it would result in population, employment, land use, or VMT that exceeds the growth estimates assumed in the applicable air quality management plan, since such exceedances would hinder achievement of Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 68 -

Consistency with the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan
The 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan ( AQAP) provides local guidance for air basins to achieve attainment of Federal and State AAQS. Due to the regional natu re of the ozone challenges and the fact that the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA) counties share the same air basin, the NSVPA Air Districts jointly prepared the original 1991 AQAP and subsequent triennial updates, including Shasta County A ir Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Areas that meet these 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 unclassifie d. Shasta County is nonattainment-transitional for ozone standards.

The 2021 AQAP proposes strategies and regulations for the three -year planning cycle for the 2021 AQAP (2022 through 2024). Continued attention is given to reducing Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) and NO X emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources with implementation of regulations and planning requirements from earlier AQAP planning cycles. The Shasta County Air Pollution Control Board adopted the 2021 AQAP on April 5, 2022.

Control Measures
To attain and maintain air quality standards, the NSVPA Air Districts, including SCAQMD, have adopted control measures to limit the amount of air pollutant releases from sources. The NSVPA Air Districts have regulatory authority over stationa ry sources of air pollutants and some area sources.

SCAQMD’s existing rules provide consistency with the AQAP’s control measures and apply to all new development in Shasta County and the City of Redding. However, the proposed project also includes several policies in the Community Development and Design Element, Transportation, Environmental Justice, and Natural Resources Elements that aim to reduce emissions associated with transportation by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and land use patterns that reduce VMT.

Project Consistency with Emissions Projections in the 2021 AQAP A project’s consistency with the AQAP can also be determined based on its consistency with projections in the AQAP. As indicated in Table 5.3 -10, Comparison of NSVPA and General Plan 2045 Ozone Precursor Emissions – Areawide and Mobile Sources, on page 5.3-33 of the DEIR, the ROG and NOX emissions that would be generated by activity under the General Plan 2045 in 2045 would exceed the projections in the AQAP for 2025.

The proposed project’s exceedance of the proportional NSVPA areawide ROG emissions forecast is principally attributable to the use of wood -burning hearths and stoves. While the 2021 AQAP emissions forecast horizon is in year 2025 and the proposed project’s emissions forecast is in year 2045, the 2021 AQAP does not provide emissions forecasts farther into the future. Because the extent of growth in population, employment, and land use development through 2025 from the proposed project is unknown at this time, the 2045 emissions forecast from the proposed project was compared against the 2021 AQAP emissions forecast for 2025 as a conservative assessment of whether the proposed project would be consistent with the 2021 AQAP.

Although individual projects under the General Plan 2045 would be subject to SCAQMD’s adopted rules that ensure new and modified sources of air pollution do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of AAQS, cumulative emissions due to buildout of the City under the proposed project Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 69 -

would exceed the emissions projected in the 2021 AQAP. As such, Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ-2 would be required to ensure that future development projects facilitated by the proposed project implement the applicable Standard Mitigation Measures (SMMs) and Best Available Mitigation Measures (BAMMs) contained in the Natural Resources Element. Nonetheless, due to the programmatic nature of this Draft EIR, it is not possible to estimate project- specific emissions or identify quantifiable reductions that would result from project-specific implementation of the Natural Resources Element SMMs and BAMMs. Therefore, the potential for future projects to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2021 AQAP is considered significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures:

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. SMMs retained in the General Plan Update are listed below:
 Provide energy -efficient process systems, such as water heaters, furnaces, and boiler units.
 Apply nontoxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specification to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).  Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering prior to final occupancy.
 All grading operations of a project shall be suspended when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour as directed by the AQMD.  All new wood burning devices shall be EPA Phase II certified.  Streets should be designed to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops.  Large residential, commercial, and industrial projects should include bus shelters at transit access points.
 Provide temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction to improve traffic flow (e.g., flag person).
 Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours.  Water active construction sites at least twice daily as directed by the Public Works Department.
 All truck hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials should be co vered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 70 -

CVC Section 23114. This provision is enforced by local law enforcement agencies.
 Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweeper with reclaimed water).  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.

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 A vailable Mitigation Measures (BAMMs) recommended by SCAQMD, to the extent feasible and applicable to the project. BAMMs retained in the General Plan Update are listed below:

Residential Level A BAMMs:
 Implement all applicable Standard Mitigation Measures.  Contribute to traffic -flow improvements that reduce emissions and are not growth-inducing (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.).  Install an electrical outlet at the front and back of all residential units for electrical yard equipment.

Residential Level B BAMMs:
 Implement all applicable Standard Mitigation Measures and Level "A" Mitigation Measures.
 Construct, contribute, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide plan.
 Synchronize traffic signals along streets impacted by development.  Construct on-site and off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters.  Provide pedestrian access between bus service and majo r points within the development.
 Construct off-site pedestrian facility improvements such as overpasses and wider sidewalks.
 Include neighborhood retail sales and services within or adjacent to residential subdivisions.
 Orient building structures and insta ll landscape that takes advantage of passive solar design principles.

Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 71 -

 Install solar water heaters for at least 25 percent of the residential units in the development.
 Incorporate mixed use development in order to achieve a balance of commercial, employment, and housing options within the project site.  Provide neighborhood park(s) or other recreational options such as trails within development to minimize vehicle travel to other parks or commercial areas.  Provide densities of six units or greater to support transit.

Commercial/Industrial Level A BAMMs:
 Implement all applicable Standard Mitigation Measures.  Contribute to traffic -flow improvements that reduce emissions and are not growth-inducing (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.).  Provide preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools and provide 7-foot 2-inch minimum vertical clearance in parking facilities for vanpool access.

Commercial/Industrial Level B BAMMs:
 Implement all applicable Standard Mitigation Measures and Level "A" Mitigation Measures.
 Telecommuting programs, alternate work schedules, and guaranteed ride home programs shall be established as appropriate.
 Provide transit-use incentives such as subsidized transit passes and accommodation of unusual work schedules to encourage transit use.  Convert fleet vehicles to clean-burning fuel as appropriate.  Shower/locker facilities shall be provided when appropriate for bicycling and pedestrian commuters.
 Construct off -site bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements such as trails linking the facility to designated pedestrian/bicycle commuting routes.  Provide on-site services such as cafeterias, food vending machines, automatic tellers, etc., as appropriate.
 Contribute to construction of off-site park-n-ride lots.  Provide on -site childcare and after -school facilities or contribute to off -site development within walking distance.
 Construct on -site pedestrian facility improvements such as walk paths and building access which is physically separated from street and parking lot traffic.

Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 72 -

 Implement compressed work -week schedules where weekly work hours are compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80, 4/40 or 3/36.  Construct on-site and off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, or shelters.  Provide adequate bicycle storage/parking facilities.
 Implement alternative transportation programs such as Caltrans rideshare.

Finding. Implementation of the appropriate SMMs and BAMMs would ensure that the City incorporates emission reduction measures into the requirements for individual development projects; however, given the growth in population and employment within the City and the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve consistency with the NSVPA 2025 emissions forecast, it is uncertain whether appropriate SMMs and BAMMs would reduce individual project emissions to less- than-significant levels. Therefore, emissions are considered significant and unavoidable.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that reduces the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above; however, no further mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts to below SCAQMD adopted thresholds due to the magnitude of growth and associated emissions that would generate by buildout of the General Plan Update.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, tec hnological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

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.

Regional Construction Emissions
The General Plan Update would accommodate future development for residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial uses. The future development and other physical changes that could result from the implementation of the General Plan Update implementation would generate construction - related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, including ROG, NO X, PM10, and PM2.5 from
site preparation (e.g., excavation, clearing), off -road equipment, material delivery, worker commute trips, and other activities (e.g., building construction, asphalt paving, application of architectural coatings).

Construction activities associated with the General Plan 2045 would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan, causing short- term emissions of criteria air pollutants. For the proposed General Plan Update, which is a broad policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of criteria pollutants of concern. Overall, Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 73 -

air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project -by-project basis, and information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity.

Nonetheless, to provide a reasonable representation of what construction emissions could be in a given year, CARB’s OFRROAD database was utilized to quantify reasonably expected annual construction emissions. All quantified construction emissions associated with the proposed project are included in the daily operational emission estimates presented in Table 5.3-11, Proposed Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, on page 5.3-11 of the DEIR.

All discretionary projects in the City are recommended to implement SMMs to minimize emissions and contribute to a reduction in cumulative impacts. Projects tha t generate unmitigated emissions above Level A (see Table 5.3-4, Thresholds Of Significance For Criteria Pollutants of Concern, on page 5.3-13 of Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the DEIR) must implement BAMMs in addition to the SMMs. If a project is not able to reduce emissions below the Level B threshold, emissions offsets for reducing existing sources of pollution are required. If after applying the emissions offsets, a project’s emissions still exceed the Level B threshold, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require that all projects under the General Plan 2045 implement all applicable SMMs in the Natural Resources Element in addition to any applicable SCAQMD recommendations for construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would similarly require projects that generate emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds to implement BAMMs to the extent feasible and applicable to the proposed project.

While implementation of the construction- related SMMs and BAMMs, as required by Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ -2, would reduce construction -generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, it cannot be guaranteed that emissions from all individual discretionary projects would be reduced to below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, due to Shasta County’s nonattainment - transitional status for ozone California AAQS, construction activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Update may result in adverse air quality impacts to surrounding land uses and may contribute to the existing air quality condition in the City. Therefore, impacts due to construction emissions would be potentially significant.

Localized Construction Emissions
Within the NSVAB, localized risks are primarily associated with exposure to Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions. Sources of TAC emissions during construction activities include off -road construction vehicle and equipment use and on- road vehicle use for material and soil hauling.

Identification of potential impacts to sensitive receptors resulting from project-generated TACs would require project-specific information for future individual land use development projects that is not currently known. Therefore, assessment of future development projects facilitated by the proposed project that would be subject to CEQA would undergo their own review of potential construction- related localized impacts and identify appropriate and feasible mitigation to implement to reduce potentially significant impacts. Implementation of appropriate SMMs a nd BAMMs would reduce construction emissions for future individual development projects; however, because project -specific information is not available, it is not possible to determine whether implementation of the SCAQMD SMMs and BAMMs would reduce localized impacts to sensitive receptors or identify additional quantifiable mitigation measures that would reduce project -specific construction emissions to ensure Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 74 -

that localized emissions generated during construction of future development projects under the General Plan Update do not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, this impact would be potentially significant.

Finding. The City would consult with the SCAQMD as necessary to identify project specific SMMs, BAMMs, and other measures that could be implemented to achieve compliance with established thresholds. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would require implementation of SMMs and BAMMs for project with the potential to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, it is not possible to identify quantifiable mitigation measures that would reduce project -specific construction emissions below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds or ensure that localized emissions generated during construction of future development projects under the General Plan Update do not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Therefore, the potential for construction activities under the General Plan 2045 to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant or ozone precursor for which the project area is in non-attainment is possible, and therefore considered potentially significant and unavoidable.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

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 pro ject region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Regional Operational Emissions
The proposed project would accommodate new developments that would operate through the planning horizon year 2045. New residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational development facilitated by the proposed project would result in long -term area -, energy -, and mobile -source emissions.

It should be noted that the proposed project would not itself authorize specific development to occur within the City. Future development projects would be subject to the City’s standard CEQA review process and would be required to assess project -specific emissi ons in relation to the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Although specific project-level information for potential future development is not available at this time and the estimation of emissions resulting from future development would Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 75 -

be speculative, antici pated maximum daily emissions were quantified to provide an estimate of the potential overall area, energy, and mobile source emissions resulting from the proposed project.

As shown in Table 5.3-11 Proposed Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast , on page 5.3-11 of the DEIR, the proposed project would result in ROG and PM10 emissions which would exceed both the SCAQMD’s Level A and Level B significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rule 2:1, New Source Review establishes pre -construction review requirements for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. 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. The use of Best Available Control Measures is required to ensure that projects with stationary source emissions do not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of Federal or State AAQS.

As previously discussed, the Redding General Pla n includes SMMs that the City and SCAQMD recommend be applied to all projects in the city. The City recommends that BAMMs be implemented to reduce emissions from projects that exceed the SCAQMD Level A thresholds. These BAMMs primarily apply to operational emissions, targeting the reduction in VMT and passive solar design.

Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 would ensure that all projects under the General Plan 2045 implement the applicable SMMs and BAMMs. Regardless, the proposed project would result in regional operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. As such, this impact would be potentially significant.

Localized Operational Emissions
Within the NSVAB, localized risks are primarily associated with exposure to TAC emissions. Common sources of operational TAC emissions are stationary sources (e.g., dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, and gasoline stations), which are subject to SCAQMD permit requirements. Another common and often more significant source type is on-road motor vehicles on high-volume roads, such as I-5, SR-44, and SR-299, and off-road sources such as construction equipment and diesel -powered trains traveling on the Union Pacific corridor.

The General Plan 2045 includes Policy EJ3B in the 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.

Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 76 -

As CARB has phased out the use of perchloroethylene in dry clea ners by January 1, 2023, under the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations, the proposed project would not present the potential to site sensitive receptors within proximity to dry cleaning operations using perchloroethylene. In addition, according to the City’s Traffic Flow Map, no urban or rural roads in the City exceed 100,000 or 50,000 vehicles daily, respectively. As such, the proposed project would not result in the sitting of new sensitive receptors within distances identified by CARB to high volume roads which may present a health risk. As previously stated, the proposed project would include Policy EJ3B, which would act to reduce sensitive receptor exposure to TACs and subsequent health impacts originating from distribution centers. Gasoline dispensing stations and major rail service or maintenance yards still present potential health impacts to sensitive receptors throughout and near the City. As such, the proposed project could result in the placement of new TAC sources close to receptors that may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

While policies of the General Plan 2045 target various strategies for reducing human health impacts and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the proposed project could still result in the placement of new TAC sources that may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. It is not possible to identify quantifiable mitigation measures that would reduce project -specific operational emissions to ensure that localized emissions generated during operation of future development projects under the General Plan Update do not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that reduces the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above; however, no further mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts to below SCAQMD adopted thresholds due to the magnitude of gr owth and associated emissions that would generate by buildout of the General Plan Update.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

3. Cultural and Tribal 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.

There are 14 identified historical resources in the City of Redding which include seven National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic or built environment listed sites––two NRHP or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) listed resources, four State landmarks and points of interest, and one built environment district.

Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 77 -

Future development under the proposed General Plan could adversely i mpact historic resources through changes to accommodate adaptive reuse, removal, or reconstruction. Known or future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers maintained by the City would be protected through local ordinances, the General Plan Update policies, and state and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historical resources. For example, Chapter 18.23, Historic/Architectural Preservation, of the Redding Municipal Code implem ents the Mills Act program to help protect locally designated historic resources. The City has also adopted the historic building provisions of the California Building Code via Chapter 16.02, Building Code, of the Municipal Code. Compliance with the propos ed General Plan Update policies, local ordinances, and state and federal regulations would ensure that development would not result in adverse impacts to identified historic and cultural resources. While the regulations provide a process for recognizing hi storic buildings and places, they do not prevent the reuse or modification of them. Further, a comprehensive assessment of historic resources has not been undertaken.

The General Plan Update is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growt h and development of the city and does not directly result in development. Before any development or redevelopment projects can occur in the city, all such projects are required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

However, identified historic structures may be vulnerable to development activities accompanying infill, redevelopment, or revitalization that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update. For instance, the placement of new buildings adjacent to a historic resource may result in indirect impacts to access, visibility, and visual context, while renovations or modificatio n to historic resources may deteriorate or destroy the characteristics that make those resources important or unique. In addition, other buildings or structures that could meet the NRHP criteria upon reaching 50 years of age might be impacted by development or redevelopment activity that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update, and construction could damage or destroy as-yet undiscovered resources.

Regardless of the implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to state regulations, some historic properties may be significantly affected by implementation of this General Plan Update. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Due to the programmatic nature of this EIR, potential impacts to historic resources are unknown at this time. As future development is proposed, projects would be required to assess potential impacts to historic resources and adopt mitigation as needed. Given the lack of project details and uncertainty of future impacts, no mitigation measures are currently feasible.

Finding. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible to avoid impacts with respect to historic resources. Although existing federal, State, and local regulations , including several proposed General Plan policies would reduce impacts of the proposed project with regard to historic resources, future development allowed under the General Plan could adversely impact known or unknown historic resources within the City. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 78 -

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Development under the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses within the City.

Emissions Forecast
The General Plan Update would guide the City’s growth through the next 22 years and serve as an opportunity to address issues related to climate adaptation, environmental justice, and other State - mandated laws. However, the General Plan Update would accommodate new activities, such as energy consumption, vehicular transport, and emission-generating product consumption, that would generate GHG emissions.

The community GHG emissions inventory and forecast for the City is shown in Table 5.8 -5, City of Redding GHG Emissions Forecast, on page 5.8-37 of the DEIR. Buildout of the General Plan Update with up to 8,066 new dwelling units, 43,383 new residents, 5,591,974 new nonresidential square footage, and 9,781 new employees would result in an estimated 584,307 MTCO 2e GHG emissions per year in
2045, or a decrease of approximately 2 percent from 2020 conditions. The continued increase in renewable and carbon-free electricity generation sources, as required under SB 100, would lead to a net decrease in electricity -related GHG emissions, including those associated with water treatment and transport. Similarly, the gradual increase of electric vehicles in the average fleet mix combined with increased standard for vehicle fuel economy through 2045 would result in a net decrease in on -road vehicle GHG emissions. All other emission sources, as shown in Table 5.8 -5, of the DEIR , would increase from existing conditions as a result of population and employment growth throughout the City through 2045.

It should be noted that the majority of annual GHG emissions generated by development facilitated by the proposed project are the result of vehicle use. Energy source emissions, meaning emissions associated with the consumption of electricity and natural gas for power generation, constitute the next largest source of GHG emissions during operation.

Consistency with the State’s 2045 Carbon Neutrality Goals To determine whether the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact, the proposed project must demonstrate consistency with the State’s 2045 GHG reduction target of carbon neutrality. Under the General Plan Update, new growth would be focused on areas of the City where services exist or can be expanded and/or extended to serve additional and more intensive development.

As identified in Table 5.8 -5, the proposed project would res ult in a slight decrease in emissions but Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 79 -

would not achieve an 85 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2045. Therefore, until such a time , GHG emissions impacts for the Redding General Plan Update are considered potentially significant.

While growth in the City would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions impacts, implementation of various General Plan Update policies would help to minimize GHG emissions, as described on page

5.8-38 of the DEIR.

Summary
While sector emissions would be generated under t he proposed project largely due to the forecast growth in population and employment, the above General Plan Update policies would support GHG emission reductions through individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project.

Implementation of these policies and other proposed policies of the General Plan Update would contribute to minimizing GHG emissions associated with the city to the extent feasible. However, as shown in Table 5.8 -5, GHG emissions are projected to result in a slight decreas e in emissions from the CEQA baseline but not result in the 85 percent reduction from existing conditions necessary to ensure the City is on a trajectory to achieve the long-term reductions goals of AB 1279 and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals for year 2045. Although the General Plan Update includes Natural Resource Element Policy NR14A that supports development and implementation of a Climate Action Plan and implementation measures to support this goal, it is uncertain whether these policies will, in effect, lower the City’s GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are considered significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Implementation of Policy NR14A would result in the City adopting a climate action plan to achieve the State 2045 GHG reduction target and progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals as set by AB 1279. However, given the growth in population and employment within the City and the magnitude of emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, it is uncertain whether Natural Resource Element Policy NR14A would lower GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible to avoid impacts with respect to GHG emissions as there is currently no adopted statewide plan to provide statewide measures to achieve AB 127 9 targets. Proposed policies under the proposed project would help to reduce emission, however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is accep table because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 80 -

5. Noise
NOI-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors.

Under the proposed project, various individual land use development projects would be constructed over the duration of the General Plan buildout. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Table 5.13 -8, Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels , on page 5.13 -26 of the DEIR, lists typical co nstruction equipment noise levels recommended for noise -impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

Implementation of the project would result in an increase in development intensity to accommodate growth. Construction noise levels are highly variable and dependent upon the specific locations, site plans, and construction details of individual projects. Significant noise impacts may occur from operation of heavy earth- moving equipment and truck- haul operations that would occur with construction of individual development projects, which have not yet been developed, particularly if construction techniques, such as impact or vibratory pile driving, are proposed. The time of day that construction activity is cond ucted would also determine the significance of each project, particularly during the more sensitive nighttime hours. However, construction would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time.

The General Plan 2045 includes Policy N- 2I which directs the City to establish noise standards for construction noise that establish a maximum level of acceptable exterior noise for receptors within 500 feet of the construction activity. However, even with implementation of this proposed polic y, and municipal code compliance, it is not possible nor appropriate to quantify the construction noise impacts at sensitive receptors that may be in close proximity to future development sites, because specific, project-level information is not available at this time. In most cases, construction of individual developments associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each individual project, potentially affecting existing and future nearby sensitive uses. Because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because, depending on the project type, equipment list, time of day, phasing, and overall construction durations, noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time or during the more sensitive nighttime hours, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require the City to update its Noise Ordinance to include provisions for development that would reduce noise impacts during construction. While Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that construction related noise reducing measures are implemented for all projects subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance, it cannot be determined at this time whether impacts would be reduced to less than significant for individual projects. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 81 -

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1 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.

Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that reduces the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above; however, no further mitigation measures are available that would reduce construction noise impacts to below a less than significant level because specific project- level information is inherently unavailable at this time.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific ove rriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

NOI-2: Project implementation would generate a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors near rail in areas that exceed established noise standards.

Buildout of the General Plan Update would result in an increase in traffic along local roadways proximate to ex isting sensitive receptors. A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it substantially increases the ambient noise levels at adjoining areas. The following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), were used to assess traffic noise impacts within 50 feet of traffic segments in the Planning Area. A significant impact would occur if traffic noise increase would exceed:
 1.5 dBA in ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher.  3 dBA in ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 dBA CNEL.  5 dBA in ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL.

Table 5.13 -9, Traffic Noise Increases in the Planning Area , on page 5.13 -30 of the DEIR, shows the estimated traffic noise increase along study roadway segments. The traffic noise increase is the difference between the projected future noise level and the existing noise level. As shown in Table

5.13-9 of the DEIR, traffic noise increases are estimated along several of the study roadway segments from implementation of the General Plan. However, two of these roadway segments, Rancho Road, Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 82 -

west of Airport Road and Twin View Road Boulevard, south of Oasis Boulevard would experience a potentially significant traffic noise increase. Noise Element policies N-2B, N-2C, N-2D N-2E, and N- 2F would help minimize and mitigate traffic noise impacts. For example, Policy N -2B would require new development to mitigate transportation noise created by the project to the levels specified in the Table N-1 of the proposed Noise Element while Policy N-2D would require an acoustical analysis for projects with noise -sensitive land uses that would be exposed to exterior noise above the noise standards in Table N -1. Policy N-2E outlines strategies for future development and action from the City to reduce traffic noise impacts on sensitive land uses. However, traffic noise increases on the roadway segments shown in bold in Table 5.13-9 of the DEIR are conservatively considered to remain significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Development consistent with the General Plan would contribute to traffic noise conditions that exceed established noise standards. There are no feasible mitigation measures to control traffic noise. Since this traffic is an unavoidable outcome of the General Plan buildout, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that reduces the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Since there are no feasible mitigation measures to control noise traffic, then the General Plan would contribute to traffic noise that exceeds the threshold.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

6. Wildfire
WILD-2: Development under the General Plan 2045 could exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire.

The City of Redding and its SOI are vulnerable to and at significant risk of wildfires. Bordered by forest and woodlands, the city is in proximity to areas with fuel mixes that could easily ignite and encroach into the community. During a wildfire event, people within the air basin would be exposed to elevated levels of particulates. The type and extent of vegetation and fuel, wind and climatic patterns, general topography and canyons, and other local characteristics make the city more vulnerable to wildfires.

Figure 5.18-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones , on page 5.18-18 of the DEIR, depicts the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) mapped Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) in Redding and its SOI. The VHFHSZ includes areas potentially threa tened by wildfires based on historical fire activity and prevalent vegetation types. Development associated with the buildout of the General Plan Update would result in new development in VHFHSZ areas. To protect development in the VHFHSZ, the City require s adherence to a wide range of state and local Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 83 -

codes (California Fire Code, CAL FIRE safe design requirements, City Fire and Public Works Standards, Redding Fire Department ( RFD) wildfire requirements, and other standards). Because development in these are as presents challenges for fire protection and suppression, development in these areas would be required to abide by those requirements.

Additionally, several policies in the General Plan 2045 Public Safety Element emphasize and require fire-safe development in the City, as described on page 5.18-35 of the DEIR.

As shown in Figure 5.7 -3, Landslide Susceptibility , in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils , of the DEIR, a significant portion of the west side of the City contains steep slopes with high landslide susceptibility.

Construction of potential future development in these areas may require grading and site preparation activities that could change the slope of a single parcel or site. However, all potential future development within Redding would be requ ired to comply with the California Building Standards Code, State Responsibility Area ( SRA) Fire Safe Regulations, and the requirements in the Redding Municipal Code, Chapter 9.20, Fire Code, which include standards to minimize the ignition and spread of w ildfire due to slopes. Policy CDD6B in the proposed Community Development and Design Element also directs the City to consider establishing hillside development standards to decrease allowable residential densities with increase in site slope, limit excess ive grading on slopes, encourage use of multiple levels where appropriate, and minimize deforestation and disturbance of native vegetation outside the approved building footprint and street and utility corridors, while considering the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for wildland fire protection.

Adherence to the above building practices, fire safety regulations, and vegetation fuel management requirements would reduce the potential for exacerbating wildfire risks. However, due to the programmatic nature of this analysis, the unknown details and potential impacts of specific future potential development projects under the General Plan 2045 and the possibility of potential future development being located in wildfire-prone areas, impacts would still be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would increase population, buildings, and infrastructure in wildfire prone areas of the City’s Planning Area . Through proposed General Plan policies and mandatory wildfire hazard reduction measures through state regulations, impacts related to exacerbating the risk of pollutant concentrations from wildfire and the uncontrolled spread of wildfire would be reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level. These policies listed in the proposed General Plan would not increase the number of people, buildings, and infrastructure, but would also not prohibit development under the proposed General Plan; rather they would provide the best wildfire hazard reduction measures available. The only way to fully avoid the wildfire impact from implementation of the proposed General Plan is to not allow development in areas within High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and the Wildland Urban Interface , thereby eliminating the wildfire impact. However, doing so is not feasible or practical as the C ity has a responsibility to meet other conflicting obligations, including increases in the number and type of housing available in the City and maintaining economic drivers such as ti mber harvesting and outdoor recreation. The C ity needs to promote both economic development and corresponding residential development, as required by State housing law, within its adopted growth boundaries. This conclusion does not prevent a finding of less-than- significant impacts at the project level; however, due to potential unknown impacts from Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 84 -

future development under the proposed General Plan, no mitigation measures are feasible and impacts at the programmatic level would remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible to avoid impacts with respect to wildfire risks. Although existing federal, State, and local regulations , including several proposed General Plan policies would reduce impacts of the proposed project with regard to wildfire risk, future development allowed under the General Plan would still be allowed within areas of elevated wildfire risk. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed proje ct outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and therefore, merit in -depth consideration, and which ones are infeasible.

A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the DEIR.

1. Alternative Location
The proposed General Plan covers the entire City and the Sphere of Influence. Alternative locations are typically included in an environmental document to avoid, lessen, or eliminate the significant impacts of a project by considering the proposed development in an entirely different location. To be feasible, development of off-site locations must be able to fulfill the project purpose and meet most of the project’s basic objectives. Given the nature of the proposed project (adoption of a General Plan for the entire city and sphere of influence), it is not possible to consider an off-site alternative because the city boundaries have been established through incorporation and the SOI established by LAFCO.

For this reason, an off -site alternative was considered infeasible pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) and was rejected as a feasible project alternative.

2. Alternative Land Use Plan
A reduced density alternative would result in fewer residences and less non -residential development, which would theoretically reduce traffic and thereby reduce community impacts such as air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, noise, and demand for utilities and public services. However, such an alternative would not achieve or would only partially achieve the General Plan objectives of providing for growth of the City. This alternative would not provide needed housing as projected by the state Department of Housing and Community Development, increase jobs in the City, or foster growth in the focus and identified opportunity areas rather than in sensitive areas or through annexation. By significantly restricting growth, the environmental impact of the projected growth Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 85 -

would increase development pressure elsewhere in the region. As a reduced development density conflicts with regional plans, would relocate impacts outside of the city, and would not meet the project objectives, this option was not evaluated in this EIR.

3. No Further Development of Historic Structures
The environmental analysis identified the potential for future development to modify or remove buildings that could qualify as historic. This alternative would establish a policy to prevent projects that would affect historic buildings. Many of the potentially historic buildings in the City are in and around the downtown area and are commercial in nature. Preventing modification of the commercial buildings would limit their economic use and could result in decay and ultimately abandonment of the buildings.

Some of the modifications envisioned by the General Plan include adding housing in and near the downtown. This alternative would either prevent or make this effort more difficult. F ewer residents near commerce and employment would increase vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as customers and employees would need to drive downtown. The proposed project includes Policy NR9F that, if implemented, would create an inventory of historic buildings and municipal code Section 18.23 Historic/Architectural Preservation regulates how and when historic buildings can be modified. The California Building Code also includes a historic buildings provision that recognizes challenges with these unique resources and allows for improvements consistent with the age and use of the structure.

Because the use and reuse of potentially historic buildings is essential to the success of the downtown, and important to ensure that the building owner can continue to mainta in the structure(s), this alternative is considered infeasible and not evaluated in this EIR.

4. Transfer of Development Rights
For properties that have biological and cultural resources, current City polices allow for clustering of development to ensure that protecting the resource doesn’t preclude the ability of the property to be developed efficiently. This alternative would establish a program that would allow owners to extend the transfer of development potential to other land in the City. A transfer of development right (TDR) program is difficult to administer as it requires that the City keep track of development ‘potential’ created on one parcel and both remove the development potential on that parcel then move the development potential to another rece iving property. A program like this would also need to ensure that both the original and receiving properties meet the development expectations established in the General Plan. The ability of a property owner to cluster development to avoid resources on a site is seen as a sufficient method of encouraging the protection of resources within the City. The City can also consider specific plans or specialized zoning if several parcels are combined to allow protection of resources and allocation of development. Because of the combination of complexity and existing ability to cluster development this alternative is considered infeasible and not evaluated in this EIR.

B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project but may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project.

Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 86 -

1. No Project/Existing General Plan
This is the only EIR alternative that is specifically required by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]). The No Project alternative does not represent a no-development or no change scenario as the City has an existing General Plan. Further, the lan d use diagram in the existing General Plan is unchanged with the proposed project. This alternative w ould focus 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 and not reducing the proposed Planning Area.

Finding: This alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the project’s objectives .

Furthermore, this alternative would not reduce any impacts when compared to the proposed project and i nstead would result in greater impacts to agricultural and forestland, air quality, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire due to the lack of adoption of new and updated policies that would better mitigate impacts in addition to the larger Planning Area under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative.

2. No Annexation
This alternative was selected to reduce or eliminate the potential to convert prime agricultural/forest land to urban uses, reduce exposure to wildfire, and protect biological resources. The alternative would establish a no-expansion beyond the existing city limits policy for the General Plan that would prevent annexation thereby increasing the development potential and land value of infill properties already within the City.

Finding: This Alternative would reduce impacts to agriculture and forestland, air quality, cultural and tribal cultural resources, GHG emissions, and wildfire when compared to the proposed project but they would remain significant and unavoidable, as expected with the proposed project. The No Annexation Alternative would generally meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent . While this Alternative is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative, it is rejected since it would not reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant nor would it meet project objectives to the extent of the proposed project.

3. Increased Intensity Alternative
A primary goal of the proposed project is to encourage development consistent with the existing land use pattern of the City, however, as a General Plan update the City can consider changes to the land use pattern. A greater density and intensity Alternative would reduce the need for annexation which would reduce the potential to convert prime agricultural/forest land to urban uses, reduce exposure to wildfire, and protect biological resources. This alternative could also reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) with corresponding reductions in air quality and greenhouse gas emission impacts.

Finding: Impacts to agriculture and forestland resources, air quality, GHG emissions, and wildfire would be decreased when compared to the proposed project, however, they would remain significant and unavoidable. The Increased Intensity Alternative would generally meet the project objectives. Since this Alternative would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant, it is therefore rejected.

Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 87 -

V. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the proposed project. If, in the opinion of the City Council, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093[a]). CEQA re quires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provide s a description of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

4. Project Benefits in Support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations The following section describes the benefits of the proposed project that outweigh the proposed project’s unavoidable adverse e ffects. Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural and tribal resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and wildfire identified in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination.

Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed project.

Implementation of the project would enable the City to achieve the project objectives, as established in the proposed General Plan, while avoiding significant environmental effects to the extent possible through feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein and balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts. The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment and based on substantial evidence, the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the project can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the project itself; and in the record of proceedings.

Given the imperative for future growth the City finds that the project will have the following economic, social, technological, and/or environmental benefits, which constitute overriding considerations.

5. Note on unavoidable impacts:

The unavoidable impacts noted in this section are a direct result of the growth required to accommodate projected needs for housing , required by the state, and employment as noted below.

While most environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated, there are those, particularly those related to long-term cumulative impacts, that cannot. Providing necessary housing and accompanying services and employment opportunities will result in the utilization of land and its attendant potential impacts to habitat types, cultural resources, increased transportation and construction noise, additional air quality and greenhouse gas increases that are beyond the City’s ability to adequately control, and Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 88 -

wildfire impacts given the City’s location adjacent to and within the planning area’s northern and western foothills.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Although most potential project environmental impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, there remain ten project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. The DEIR identified the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed project:

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Impact AG-1: The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban land use. • Impact AG-3: The proposed project would result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

As shown in Figure 5.2 -2, the City Limits is largely urban and built -up land and not commercially farmed, however the land between the City Limits and the extent of the planning area, as shown in Table 5.2-1 of the Draft E IR, includes 1,523 acres of prime farmland, land of statewide significance, farmland of local importance, and unique farmland. Table 5.2 -2 of the Draft EIR identifies 16,466 acres of forestland (primarily oak woodlands) within the Planning Area. The City must allow for residential growth to meet its existing and future regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and to assist the state in producing housing to help resolve the identified statewide housing crisis. Further, commercial/industrial growth is require d to achieve an acceptable jobs -housing balance to provide services and employment opportunities in proximity to homes and reduce the “vehicle miles travelled” in the City is accordance with state goals. It is reasonable to assume that one or more parcels considered prime land for agriculture or forest will be converted to non-agricultural land uses.

A vacant residential classified land analysis provided by the City’s GIS Division indicates that, based on the Shasta County Assessor records showing improved values of properties of $15,000 or less, a minimum of four-square miles of agricultural and oak woodland forest lands in the project’s Planning Area could be impacted to some degree by future development. It should be noted that the various oak woodland habitats are the predominant land cover type in the proposed Planning Area and exceed the existing “urban” land cover by approximately three -square miles. Other predominant land cover types, Annual Grassland and Mixed Chaparral, have considerable development constraints given their locations in the Planning Area and are thus not classified for residential uses by the General Plan Diagram. For example, much of the Annual Grasslands (5,371 acres) are in the vicinity of, and impacted by the Redding Regional Airport and the approved and developing Stillwater Business Park which would preclude residential development. Other lands are constrained by vernal pool habitats.

Much of the area identified as the Mixed Chaparral land cover type (6,567 acres) is in the no rthwest portion of the proposed Planning Area. This area has inadequate roadway access, lacks sanitary sewer service, and is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The primary consumer of urban land in Redding is for residential uses. Given their loc ations in the Planning Area, the development constraints of the Annual Grassland and Mixed Chaparral land cover types are considerable and either preclude future residential development outright or the development Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 89 -

constraints will not be overcome within the lifespan of the Project. Much of the identified forest habitat does not share these significant development constraints.

A key objective of the proposed project is to reduce the size of the current planning area and encourage infill development and development in proximity to existing utilities and services to reduce the need for annexation and conversion of prime agricultural and forest land. While this strategy will help constrain the City’s future urban footprint and reduce impacts to these lands that would otherwise occur, accommodating residential and commercial/industrial growth as noted above will necessitate some level of conversion of agriculture and forest lands to provide adequate housing and services to all segments of the community as required by Housing Element law. This will likely occur, notwithstanding the classification of approximately 11,000 acres on the General Plan Diagram as “Greenway” that will be largely protected from future development.

Regarding agricultural lands, the proposed project includes Policy NR12A that shelters existing agricultural use from encroachment by homes and other sensitive receptors. Proposed General Plan Policy NR12C discourages fragmentation of agriculturally managed land which will help reduce the potential for early conversion to non-agricultural land uses, but it is unlikely that the policy will prevent conversion of all the identified agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. Inclusion of Policies NR12B and NR12D that encourage small -scale agricultural uses will not offset the probable conversion of agricultural to urban uses.

Finally, although agricultural land may be visually compatible with homes, operationally there can be conflict between the two land uses. Commercial agriculture requires maintenance which can be noisy and dusty, and often uses chemicals that can affect adjacent residents, or increase the cost to the farmer as some treatments may not be approved for use near higher density populations. Also, if the agricultural area(s) are not maintained to industry standards there is a potential for the land to harbor pests that can spread to commercial agriculture.

The proposed project reduces the Planning Area from the existing condition, includes policies to help facilitate a more compact urban form, and furthers the state goals of housing at all levels and reducing vehicle miles travelled. The City has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR to agriculture and forestry.

Air Quality
• Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan.
• Impact 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. • Impact 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 Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 90 -

region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Table 5.2 -10 shows that the NOx and ROG ozone precursors will exceed the 2021 Air Quality Attainment Plan even with the mitigation strategy and best management practices included in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and policies in the proposed project. The three -year plan is based on the existing General Plan and will need to be revised by the SCAQMD to reflect the proposed project and the additional design and operational policies included to reduce air quality impacts.

The proposed General Plan includes policies such as PS4L that requires two points of access for projects with 50 or more dwelling units, Policy T1A for complete streets that allow for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and Policy T1D requiring access for users of all abilities and ages to ensure there are mobility options that do not involve the personal automobile. By replacing a need to drive with the ability to walk or use alternative transportation the expectation is for a reduction in vehicle miles travelled with the corresponding improvement in air quality and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed General Plan also includes Policy T3A designed to improve access to transit and Policy T2B supporting continuous trails to adjacent cities such as Anderson and Shasta Lake. Also included in the proposed project is support for additional charging stations near parking areas and trail heads to encourage the use of electric vehicles. Policy CDD11A encourages infill development that allows for new homes to be placed near existing resources and then requires connectivity for pedestrian and non- vehicle transportation. These policies are not part of the existing General Plan and are essential to the City meeting the state goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing for regional housing needs.

For mobility impacts the City is limited in the mitigation afforded to it as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has sole jurisdiction over the formulation of fuels used in vehicles and works to establish vehicle efficiency standards that must be followed. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) tests for smog emitted from vehicles licensed to use California roadways and can force the removal of a truck or car that fails to pass the state emissions requirement. The City cannot be more restrictive than either of these state agencies and must therefore rely on city design such as connectivity between housing and services, and by encouraging the use of alternative transportation.

As a regional hub, it is expected that the City will see additional truck and vehicle traffic through the 2045 horizon of the General Plan, and that while opportunities for alternative transportation and design can be provided, the City cannot compel residents to use them. Therefore, as the City must continue to allow development to meet state housing goals, and there is no ability to change the composition or fuel type of vehicles on local roadways, the City has determined that the benefits, of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR to air quality.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Impact 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.

The City is fortunate in retaining many older buildings and neighborhoods that help create a vibrant community. These facilities are not static museum pieces however and must continue to be habitable Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 91 -

and competitive in the market for rents and occupancy. Without the ability to continue to use these buildings the owner may stop investment resulting in loss through benign neglect.

The City supports adaptive reuse of buildings to ensure they can continue to be economically viable and has adopted Chapter 12.23 Historic/Architectural Preservation as part of the Municipal Code to support preservation of historic structure. The City has also adopted the Historic Building provisions of the California Building Code that p rovides different building standards for historic buildings designed to make reuse easier. Because of changes in accessibility requirements, fire and seismic safety, and the realities of replacing ageing facades with sustainable materials, means that one o r more of a building’s historic features may be changed resulting in an impact on this resource. As the alternative to allowing the continued reuse of a structure can be the loss of home or business, and could lead to blight in a neighborhood if an owner l acks any incentive to continue investment in the property, the City has determined that the benefits, of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR to historic resources.

Greenhouse Gases
• Impact GHG-1: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Table 5.8-5, GHG emissions are projected to result in a slight decrease in emissions from the CEQA baseline but not result in the 85 percent reduction from existing conditions necessary to ensure the City is on a trajectory to achieve the long -term reductions goals AB 1279 and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals for year 2045. The City has adopted California’s Green Building Code and the General Plan Update includes Natural Resource Element Policy NR14A that , if implemented, would result in the development and implementation of a Climate Action Plan (CAP),.

However, it is both uncertain that the CAP will be adopted, and if the policies can lower the City’s GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency identifies the following key methods of reducing GHG:

• Energy Efficiency
• Renewable Energy
• Supply Chain
• Waste Reduction and Diversion
• Reduce Methane Emissions
• Increase in Fuel Efficiency in Transportation and Logistics

Of the above, the state and federal governments are in the lead position for improving energy efficiency and r enewable energy through establishing regulations for energy efficiency, establishing goals for renewable energy, and regulating waste reduction and diversion. Local participation for the energy efficiency and renewable energy is focused on establishing a compact urban form, which is one of the key objectives of the project, ensuring connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians to reduce VMT, improving transit, and ensuring that new development follows all regulations.

Even with policies in the proposed General Plan, it is likely that overall VMT will increase as the project builds. Individual projects may exceed the VMT threshold as one or more improvements, such as trail Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 92 -

connections or transit stops that would reduce VMT may not be ready when the project is completed.

As the City needs development to construct and/or pay for improvements it is essential that development projects occur. Therefore, the City has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR to VMT..

Noise
• Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the Planning Area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. • Impact NOI-2: Project implementation would generate a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors near rail in areas that exceed established noise standards.

The proposed project is intended to encourage more infill rather than extending City boundaries to accommodate new growth. Infill development is by definition occurs adjacent to homes and businesses that are considered sensitive receptors. Without allowing construction in the existing built environment, demand for new construction would require annexation of new la nd, including prime agricultural and forest land. While this may still occur, it is likely at a slower rate due to the focus on infill development.

Construction activities may generate noise and vibration, but these will be temporary and eventually replaced with operational noise that can be addressed by design features of the project.

Additional traffic will also increase noise, and adding new housing near existing noise sources such as the railroad and freeway may introduce more people to substantial noise. Design features such as using the building as a noise shield and putting transition areas such as landscaping and parking in the noisiest areas of the project site will help create quieter outdoor areas for residents, but they will still be exposed to noise from rail and traffic sources. Interior noise levels, however, will be required to comply with the requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Code.

The focus on infill is important for so many other environmental reasons such as reducing v ehicle miles travelled, adaptive reuse of older buildings, achieving a more compact urban form reducing the need for the private automobile, that the City has determined that the benefits, of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR for noise.

Wildfire
• Impact WILD-2: Development under the General Plan 2045 could exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire.

Even with the reduction in planning area, the City is affected by wildfire and particulates from wildfire smoke. The General Plan includes policies to create and maintain evacuation routes, limit development on slopes, unde rground new and existing power lines where feasible, and ensure adequate water supplies in remote and hillside development. While these factors will reduce the potential for exposing people to the effects of wildfire, they cannot eliminate the potential for exposure. Further, in some weather conditions smoke from wildfire can blanket the entire city affecting all residents.

Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 93 -

Even with the potential for exposing new residents to wildfire, new developments have benefits following Policies PS4K and PS4L ensuring dual access and short cul -de-sac length. Policy PS41 requires that adequate water be demonstrated in remote and hillside areas, and Policy PS4C ensures that defensible space and fuel management is part of all new construction. These policies will work to reduce exposure and limit damage from wildfire and provide a benefit to existing developments in the wildfire areas by improving access and fire suppression. As the entire City is affected by wildfire and wildfire particulates, and development limited by the policies in the plan will improve access and fire suppression ability in the wildfire prone areas, the City has determined that the benefits, of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR for wildfire.

Addresses the City’s current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community by providing a range of housing types.

It is critical that the General Plan facilitate the development of housing to help not only address the critical housing shortage that exists in the state, but to address the affordability of housing locally by providing sufficient housing stock appropriate for all income levels in the community. Doing so will require both redevelopment within existing commercial co rridors and “in -fill” parcels to provide additional residential opportunities and new “greenfield” development. Because the habitat is pervasive in the planning area, much of the new development will necessarily occur within oak woodland habitats, and to a lesser degree agricultural lands. Oak woodlands are the primary land cover type found in vacant residentially classified land in the City and where existing access to required infrastructure such as arterial and collector streets, water and wastewater utilities, electric, and other requirements are reasonably located.

The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted in 2020 and includes a policy framework aimed at providing new housing in the City of Redding through the planning period of 2028. The City anticipates that the demand for housing will continue beyond the time frame of the current Housing Element and the proposed General Plan has been developed to address that need by identifying residential lands in excess of the 2028 needs along with accomp anying development policies that will address the desired type and form of that development. The proposed project includes several goals and policies that support the adopted Housing Element including Community Development and Design Element Policy CD11E which directs the City to facilitate the construction of new affordable housing units that are within walking distance of transit, everyday services, schools, and jobs and Policy CDD11J which encourages the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junio r Accessory Dwelling Units in single-family residential districts, consistent with State law, to increase the housing stock and provide more affordable housing options. Policy CDD11B states that maximum residential densities within a given range of land use classification of the General Plan Update are appropriate for projects that develop affordable housing that is supported by financial aid or other assistance by the city of Redding. These policies and others throughout the proposed General Plan are consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the adopted Housing Element and will provide opportunities for residents to obtain safe and affordable housing that is necessary to preserve the social fabric of the community.

It should be noted that the necessity to provide opportunities for housing and employment growth for all segments of the community, together with the required road and utility and other infrastructure to Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 94 -

serve that growth, will result in the unavoidable impacts noted above. The benefits of providing housing, employment and infrastructure outweighs the identified significant environmental impacts.

Addresses the social benefits of community health and wellness As part of this General Plan Update, a new Community Health, Wellness, and Environmental Justice Element is included to address the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged and underserved communities, promote civic engagement in the public decision- making process, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of these communities. The inclusion of this Element is based on the requirements of SB 1000, Environmental Justice and General Plans, which requires the inclusion of environmental justice goals and policies in general plans adopted after January 1, 2018, for jurisdictions that contain Disadvantaged Communities as defined in Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code. The General Plan Update includes several policies that aim to improve health and environment in disadvantaged and underserved communities . For example, Policy EJ3H discourages locating truck routes on primarily residential streets in Disadvantaged Communities and Policy EJ9C directs the City to support investment in underserved areas to help them become more vibrant and cohesive neighborhoods with quality housing, employment options, community facilities, transportation connections, enhanced social and health services, and active public spaces. Policy EJ6H directs the City to consider prioritizing improvements to sidewalks and the pedestrian environment.

Enhancing the health and wellness of the community is of paramount importance to the City of Redding.

Promotes high-quality retail and mixed-use development to attract an array of businesses and employment opportunities.

Many policies in the proposed General Plan encourage diversification and development of the City’s economic base. In addition to residential uses, providing sufficient opportunities to develop new employment centers are necessary to achieve a reasonable jobs -housing balance, reduce vehicle miles travelled in the City, and to ensure convenient and safe access to every day services needed by residents.

The project will provide significant benefits to the City and community in terms of creating both short and long-term employment opportunities for residents including construction work and long-term jobs in the trades, retail, and services industries. This will also allow an increase in sales tax revenue that will help sustain the City’s funding for police, fire, emergency evacua tion planning, public safety, planning, parks, and other critical responsibilities. Implementation of the proposed project would allow residents to live within proximity to schools, recreational opportunities, retail centers, and commercial development, and minimize vehicle trips through utilizing access to a variety of transportation opportunities, including pedestrian pathways, bikeways, streets, and transit. Consequently, it is reasonably expected that the City and its residents will enjoy the economic and social benefits from the economic diversity provided by the project.

Implements the objectives established for the proposed project The objectives of the proposed project include advancing the City’s vision for a resilient, equitable, and healthy comm unity with high -quality development within its urban corridors; maintaining 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 classifications; encouraging a more compact urban form by reducing the Planning Area to a Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 95 -

more realistic growth boundary, as well as establishing thresholds and maintaining roadway levels of service for the public’s health, safety, and convenience while striving to minimize increases in vehicle miles travelled from new development. Various aspects of the proposed project accomplish these objectives. For example, the proposed project would result in the reduction of the current P lanning Area boundary by approximately 24 square miles which, in addition to accomplishing the objective of a more realistic growth boundary, this action would also meet the objectives to encourage infill development, result in a more compact urban form, reduce vehicle miles traveled and habitat impacts that would otherwise occur. In addition to providing ample opportunities for housing, the proposed General Plan encourages and facilitates development of a more resilient and healthy community with its attendant benefits to the City’s economic and social structure.

Promotes the conservation of natural resources
Notwithstanding that a certain amount of future growth will occur in the various land cover/ habitat types in and surrounding the City’s current urba n footprint, the proposed General Plan reduces the Planning Area by approximately 24 square miles which will significantly reduce future impacts that would occur without the project while still fulfilling the need to provide adequate housing opportunities. Additionally, the Natural Resources Element includes policies which preserve approximately 11,000 acres of open space for natural resource protection and public health and safety.

Other policies, including Policy NR2B encourages planting water -efficient landscape, prioritizing native and drought-tolerant plants as appropriate, and would help conserve the city’s water resources.

Policy NR4G prioritizes retaining City-owned properties that contain environmentally sensitive areas rather than making them avai lable for urban uses. In addition, Policy NR9G seeks opportunities to work with the local Wintu tribes to facilitate the use of “traditional ecological knowledge” for land management and restoration as appropriate. These policies and others included in the proposed General Plan would reduce impacts on natural resources within the Planning Area and safeguard much of the City’s precious natural resources while allowing for community growth in the future to provide housing and other opportunities for area residents.

Notwithstanding the potential for exposing new residents to wildfire, new developments will benefit from policies such as PS4K and PS4L ensuring dual access and short cul -de-sac length. Policy PS41 requires that adequate water be demonstrated in r emote and hillside areas, and Policy PS4C ensures that defensible space and fuel management is part of all new construction. These policies, together with the requirements of the California Building Code which has been adopted by the City, will work to reduce exposure and limit damage from wildfire and provide a benefit to existing developments in the wildfire areas by improving access and fire suppression. As the entire City is affected by wildfire and wildfire particulates, and development policies in the plan will improve access and fire suppression ability in the wildfire prone areas, the City has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

Establishes an efficient transportation system and consistency with the regional goals in the Shasta RTA’s 2018 RTP/SCS
The project would establish a transportation network that will fulfill the policies of the proposed General Plan’s Transportation Element and regional transportation goals by encouraging residents to live within proximity to schools, recreational opportunities, retail centers, and commercial development, and minimize vehicle trips by utilizing access to a variety of transportation opportunities, Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 96 -

including pedestrian pathways, bikeways, ar terial and collector streets, and transit. As part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Shasta Regional Transportation Authority (SRTA) addresses how the RTP will meet the region's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. Several of the objectives and actions associated with the proposed General Plan encourage active transportation and reduction of VMT. For example, goals and policies within the Community Development and Design Element and Natural Resources Element encourage mixed use design and promote alternative forms of transportation to reduce VMT. Additionally, policies within the Transportation Element encourage coordination with SRTA to ensure that the city’s circulation planning is consistent with the region’s transportation planning. The development policies of the proposed General Plan will help ensure that Redding will have the lowest rate of VMT per capita in Shasta County, and the shortest trip lengths in the County, reflecting the proximity of homes, jobs, and services withi n Redding. Compared to the region as a whole, Redding will generate less GHG per capita, a significant achievement for a City the size of Redding that has relatively few viable options for effective public transportation such as light rail service or bus service with frequent headways like those available in more dense urban areas.

As a regional hub, it is expected that the City will see additional truck and vehicle traffic through the 2045 horizon of the General Plan. While opportunities for alternative tr ansportation and design can be provided, the City cannot compel residents to use them. Therefore, the City must continue to allow development in a manner that meets state housing goals while faced with the realization that there is no ability to significantly influence the future mix of vehicles and fuel types that can make huge strides in reducing GHG. The City has determined that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

Conclusion
For any of the reasons individually and all of the above reasons taken as a whole, the City of Redding finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural and tribal resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and wildfire. Therefore, the adverse significant and unavoidable effects are considered to be acceptable by the City of Redding City Council, which is the decision-making body for the project, given the importance of this project to the City of Redding.

VI. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND REVISIONS

TO THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR contains responses to comments, revisions, clarifications, and corrections to the DEIR.

The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The City provided written responses to each comment made by a public agency, as set forth in Section 2 of the Final EIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b).

City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant added information that requires recirculation of the D EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the proposed project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the D EIR.

Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

- 97 -

Additionally, none of this material indicates th at 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 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: ^Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by

March 2024
State Clearinghouse No. 2022050300
Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the
City of Redding
General Plan Update Draft EIR
City of Redding
Prepared for:

City of Redding
Contact: Jeremy Pagan, Development Services Director
777 Cypress Avenue,
Redding, CA 96001
925.655.2901

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: ^Mitigation Monitoring Program (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding) Contact: Mark Teague, AICP, Associate Principal
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 202
Folsom, CA [email protected]
www.placeworks.com

Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: ^Mitigation Monitoring Program (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)

REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

C ITY OF REDDING
Table of Contents
March 2024 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................... 2

1.2 EIR SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................ 3

2. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCESS ......................................................................................... 4

2.1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 4

2.2 ARBITRATION RESOLUTION ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 ENFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 5

3. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 6

3.1 PRE-MITIGATION MEETING ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX ......................................................................... 6

3.3 IN-FIELD MONITORING ................................................................................................................................ 6

3.4 DATABASE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.5 COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTORS ................................................................................................ 6

3.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING ........................................................................................................................ 6

4. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTS ....................................................................................... 10

4.1 FIELD CHECK REPORT ................................................................................................................................ 10

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLIANCE REPORT ...................................................................................... 10

4.3 ARBITRATION/ENFORCEMENT REPORT ........................................................................................... 10

5. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................... 10

6. REPORT PREPARATION .................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.2 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

6.3 R EFERENCES ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................................ 7

Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: ^Mitigation Monitoring Program (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)

REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

CITY OF REDDING

3. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring Program has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2022050300. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Redding Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisd iction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

1.2 EIR SUMMARY

1.2.1 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 provided 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.

Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: ^Mitigation Monitoring Program (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)

REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MONITORIN G PROGRAM

CITY OF REDDING

2. Mitigation Monitoring Process
March 2024 Page 3

1.2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The General Plan 2045 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 decision -makers regarding the allocation of resources and determining the future physical form and character of development in the City and its 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, and 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. 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.

Additionally, the proposed project would reduce the City’s existing Planning Area. The proposed Planning Area would largely match the boundary of the City’s current SOI. 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. Furthermore, the proposed project would also include additional Focus Areas and adjust the City’s existing Focus Areas and would identify new “Opportunity Areas”.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1.3.1 IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The DEIR identified various thresholds from the CEQA Guidelines among a number of environmental categories that would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and therefore have no mitigation measures to monitor. Impacts to the following were found to be less than significant:
 AESTHETICS
 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
 ENERGY
 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
 LAND USE AND PLANNING
 MINERAL RESOURCES
 POPULATION AND HOUSING
 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
 TRANSPORTATION
 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1.3.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE

MITIGATED, AVOIDED, OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED
The DEIR identified various thresholds from the CEQA Guidelines among a number of environmental categories that could be reduced, avoided, or substantially lessened through the implementation of mitigation measures.

Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: ^Mitigation Monitoring Program (2.1--Comprehensive Update of the General Plan & Final EIR, by City of Redding)

REDDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGR AM

C ITY OF REDDING

2. Mitigation Monitoring Process

Page 4 ends

Redding City CouncilMarch 26, 2024

Redding City Council
March 26, 2024