Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO REDDING PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
Conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending Title 18, Zoning, of the Redding Municipal Code as it pertains to accessory dwelling units, trash container enclosures, off-street parking landscape screening, temporary offsite real estate development signs, and accessory structures.

Background
Under consideration are “cleanup” amendments to the text of Title 18, Zoning, of the Redding Municipal Code (RMC). Similar minor text cleanup amendments are typically processed on an annual basis; the most recent amendments were adopted by the City Council on November 2024.

The proposed amendments are intended to clarify the intent of the existing regulations and comply with California State legislation. Attached to this report are the proposed underlined and strikeout version and the proposed final version of modifications made to the below zoning sections.

The proposed text amendments are summarized below:

MEETING DATE: October 14, 2025
ITEM NO. 4(b)2
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4(b)2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Redding to consider the following proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance: (1) Modify trash enclosure requirements to comply with State law (Section 18.40.120); (2) Add in alternative to use of plants for screening which was inadvertently deleted and revise height of vegetation within vision triangle for consistency (Section 18.41.100) (3) Correct reference regarding temporary onsite real estate development signs (Section 18.42.030); (4) Eliminate tents as an accessory structure (Section 18.43.020); (5) Modify the accessory dwelling unit requirements to comply with State law (Section 18.43.140); and (6) Modify the following related to accessory dwelling units: Section 18.15.030(Q), Section 18.30.020-A, Section 18.31.020-A, Section 18.32.020-A, Section 18.33.020-A, Section 18.33.050, Section 18.41.040-A, Section 18.60.020, and Section

18.61.020.

Lily Toy, Planning Manager
Packet Pg. 381 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: October 14, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report - RZ-2025-01027 (6.1--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)2-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Redding Page 2 (1) Section 18.43.140, Accessory Dwelling Units: On December 1, 2020, the City Council (Council) considered and approved necessary amendments to Title 18, Accessory Dwelling Units, of the Redding Municipal Code (RMC), in order to bring the ordinance into compliance with California State law at that time. However, ongoing changes in state legislation since 2020 have significantly expanded upon ADU rights and regulations, rendering the current ordinance noncompliant. Staff forwarded the proposed code amendments relating to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review for compliance with State law.

Under consideration are proposed amendments that are necessary to comply with current State legislation affecting ADUs. A summary of all the changes is attached for reference; however, the following items are of note:
• Number and type of units – Creation of ADUs and JADUs from Government Code Sections (GCS) 66314, 66323, and 66332 may overlap; however, a property may only have one (1) JADU.
o GCS 66314 – One (1) ADU
o GCS 66323
▪ Single-family dwelling
• One (1) new attached or conversion of existing space to main dwelling or existing detached structure ADU.
• One (1) new detached ADU.
• One (1) JADU (if requirements can be met).
▪ Multiple-family dwelling
• Within existing space of main dwelling: One (1) or up to 25% of existing number of units of the main dwelling ADU(s), whichever is greater.
• Detached: Eight (8) or up to the existing number of units in the main dwelling ADUs, whichever is less.
o GCS 66332 – Cannot deny permit for an unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed prior to January 1, 2020.
• Front yard setbacks – ADUs with a floor area of 800 square feet or less are exempt from front yard setbacks.
• Architectural compatibility – Development or design standards applied to ADUs must be based on objective, measurable criteria. Removing subjective language like “similar” ensures compliance and consistency.
• Owner occupancy and deed restrictions – ADUs are no longer subject to occupancy restrictions; however, these restrictions are still applicable to JADUs. (2) Section 18.15.030(Q), Zoning Exceptions: In relation to ADUs, remove lot size requirements that pertain to creation of ADUs.
(3) Section 18.30.020-A, Rural Lands District; Section 18.31.020-A, Residential Districts; Section 18.32.020-A, Office Districts; Section 18.33.020-A and Section 18.33.050, Commercial Districts: In relation to ADUs, incorporate ADUs and JADUs as permitted uses Packet Pg. 382 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: October 14, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report - RZ-2025-01027 (6.1--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)2-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Redding Page 3 within the Use Classification table in the applicable zoning districts and update related text to ensure compliance with objective development standards. (4) Section 18.41.040-A, Off-Street Parking: In relation to ADUs, update parking requirement to allow option of a covered or uncovered space and clarify the need to provide for such space for a new, detached ADU on a lot with an existing dwelling. (5) Section 18.60.020, Use Classifications: In relation to ADUs, add JADU as a new residential housing type.
(6) Section 18.61.020, List of Terms and Definitions: In relation to ADUs, add and define “living area” and distinguish a dwelling as “primary”, clarifying that a primary dwelling does not include an ADU or JADU.
(7) Section 18.40.120, Trash Container Enclosures: Modify trash enclosure requirements to address organic waste recycling and comply with State law. (8) Section 18.41.100, Off-Street Parking Screening and Landscaping: Add in alternative to use of plants for screening, which was inadvertently deleted, and revise height of vegetation within vision triangle for consistency.
(9) Section 18.42.030-B, Signs: Correct reference regarding temporary on-site real estate development signs.
(10)Section 18.43.020, Accessory Uses and Structures: Eliminate tents as an accessory structure.

Issues/Alternatives
The Planning Commission has the option to recommend that the City Council either adopt or not adopt the proposed amendments or to direct staff to modify the proposed amendments prior to Council consideration. However, any modifications to the ADU ordinance should align with Activity 2.6, Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance, as identified in the adopted 2020-2028 Housing Element Update. Adoption of the proposed ADU Ordinance is of special interest to HCD, as it is directly tied to compliance with the City’s 2020-2028 Housing Element and State law. Updating the ADU Ordinance will bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Housing Element into compliance with State requirements. As a result, there is limited flexibility regarding the scope of alternatives the Planning Commission may consider. The following alternatives may be available for the Planning Commission:

1. Recommend minor revisions to the proposed ordinance that do not materially alter its compliance with State law; or

2. Direct staff to make limited revisions, also without materially changing the legal outcomes, and return the item to the Commission for further review.

Given the State’s emphasis on timely implementation of this activity, staff recommends that any continuance for revisions be scheduled to a specific date as soon as possible to avoid delays.

Environmental Determination
The passage of the proposed ordinance is not a “project” as defined in the California Packet Pg. 383 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: October 14, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report - RZ-2025-01027 (6.1--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)2-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of Redding Page 4 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions requiring environmental review.

Required Findings
Because amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are legislative acts, no specific findings are required under the Government Code.

Planning Commission Authority
Section 18.10.030 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to Title 18.

Conclusion
Adoption of the proposed amendments to the text of the Redding Municipal Code would provide consistency with adoption of recent State legislation regarding accessory dwelling units and trash enclosures and clarify the intent of the existing regulations. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to the Council.

Attachments
Summary of ADU Changes 2025
Title 18 - 2025 Zoning Code Cleanup Draft Ordinance
Title 18 - 2025 Zoning Code Cleanup Strikeout/Underline Draft Ordinance Packet Pg. 384 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: October 14, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report - RZ-2025-01027 (6.1--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01027, by the City of

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, authorize and approve the following:
(1) Introduce Ordinance amending Redding Municipal Code Title 18, (Zoning), Chapter

18.31.030-B (Density Regulations – Residential Uses) and adding RMC Title 18, Chapter

18.59, “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District, for first reading by title only and waive the second reading;
(2) Direct the City Attorney to prepare, and the City Clerk to publish a summary ordinance according to law;
(3) Find that the adoption of the ordinance is exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.085, because the proposed ordinance is a rezoning which implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element and is therefore statutorily exempt from environmental review; and (4) Adopt an amendment to the City of Redding Zoning Map establishing said Overlay District on specified properties (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 074-160-016, 108-150-001, 108-150-006, 108-150-007, 110-440-007, 110-440-008, 067-040-008, 108-100-019, 108- 100-021, 108-050-041, 108-050-044, 109-080-013, 117-200-005, 117-200-006, 112-240- 025, 110-450-003, 110-450-004, 110-450-005, and 110-450-007) located in various areas of the City of Redding and as identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact related to the proposed Housing Opportunity Overlay District or its mapping application to existing properties.

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2025
ITEM NO. 6.2
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.2--Consider Rezoning Application (RZ-2025-01030), by the City of Redding, regarding proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the addition of the Housing Overlay District to be consistent with state law as well as the City’s General Plan.

Jeremy Pagan, Development
Services Director/Bldg
Official
Packet Pg. 385
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 2 Alternative Action
On August 7, 2025, the City of Redding (City) received a corrective action letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) insisting that the Activities identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update must be fulfilled, reminding the City of the repercussions for not having a compliant Housing Element update and requesting a timeline for action to be taken on Activity 2.5, among others. Completing this rezoning to fulfill Activity 2.5 is of special interest to HCD as they are reviewing the status of the 2020-2028 Housing Element for compliance with state law.

The following alternatives are available to the City Council (Council):

1. Approve the zoning ordinance text amendment and map amendment with changes to the draft ordinance that would not materially change the outcomes required by the law; or

2. Direct staff to make changes to the draft ordinance that would not materially change the outcomes required by the law and bring the item back to the Council for review. Because the state has prioritized this Activity’s prompt completion, staff would recommend that, if directed to bring the item back with changes, any delay should be scheduled to a date certain that is as expeditious as possible; or

3. Deny the zoning ordinance amendment. The Council should understand that a denial of the zoning ordinance amendment that would implement Housing Activity 2.5 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element would lead to a determination by HCD that the Housing Element is not compliant with state law and various penalties exist in state law for jurisdictions which do not have a compliant housing element, including significant fines, loss of local control over building and zoning decisions, and restricted access to state and local funding.

Background/Analysis
The City’s 2020–2028 Housing Element was adopted by the Council on June 2, 2020, and was thereafter certified by the HCD on June 19, 2020. The 2020-2028 Housing Element establishes the City’s strategy for meeting its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) primarily by developing programs or “activities” that the City commits to completing which are intended to remove governmental constraints to residential development. These activities are considered vital to ensuring the City sees its identified RHNA is met with real development and/or viable development capacity.

Through Activity 2.5 of the Housing Element, the City committed to rezoning several properties as identified in Appendix A, Table 3 of the adopted Housing Element. In addition, Activity 2.5 ensures that the City complies with State of California Housing laws by permitting a default density of 20 units per acre for projects that meet certain criteria. The proposed amendments and the addition of the Housing Opportunity Overlay District are proposed to fulfill Activity 2.5 which reads as follows:

Packet Pg. 386
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 3 Housing Element Activity 2.5: “RM”, Residential Multiple Family District.

Description. Housing Element law/California Government Code establishes "default densities" that local jurisdictions must establish on vacant lands that can accommodate higher density housing for lower income households. The default density established for Redding is 20 dwelling units per acre. Through previous amendment of the "RM" District regulations, this default density is applied to any proposed development in the"RM-12" through "RM-18" district if a minimum of 35% of the proposed dwelling units were reserved for lower income households. More recent Government Code provisions (CGC section 65583.2) requires “by right” development (i.e. no discretionary permit required) on any parcel of land depicted on the previous two Housing Element cycles that reserves at least 20 percent of the dwelling units for lower income households if those lands have yet to be developed. This City does not currently have a mechanism in place to implement this requirement.

Objective. To amend the "RM" district regulations to establish a base density of 20 units per acre for any residential development in the "RM-12" through "RM-18" Districts that reserve а minimum of 20 percent of the residential units for lower income households.

The amendments will establish that those parcels specifically identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element will be allowed to develop without discretionary action by the City in accordance with GCC 65583.2. This activity will be completed in FY 2020-2021.

To implement this program, staff has prepared the attached Ordinance, which would:
• Amend Section 18.31.030-B (Density Regulations – Residential Uses) so that the default density of 20 units per acre would apply to projects which reserve at least 20 percent of the proposed dwelling units for lower income households in the RM-12 through RM-18 zone districts;
• Add Chapter 18.59, “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District, establishing standards, incentives, and by-right permitting for qualifying multiple-family and mixed-use housing projects; and
• Amend the City’s Zoning Map to apply the HO Overlay District to 19 parcels totaling approximately 79 gross acres, as identified in Table 3 of Appendix A to the Housing Element. The following parcels would be subject to the overlay rezoning: 074-160-016, 108-150-001, 108-150-006, 108-150-007, 110-440-007, 110-440-008, 067-040-008, 108- 100-019, 108-100-021, 108-050-041, 108-050-044, 109-080-013, 117-200-005, 117-200- 006, 112-240-025, 110-450-003, 110-450-004, 110-450-005, and 110-450-007.

The proposed amendments and corresponding state code requirements are attached for your review. Text additions to the current zoning code are noted by underlining; deletions have been struck out. The draft ordinance includes provisions that are consistent with current law. The amendment includes mapping changes to those parcels specifically identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element, where the overlay district would be applied and which would make projects eligible for approval without discretionary action by the City in accordance with CGC 65583.2.

These parcels have been identified as available for high density housing in the last two Housing Element cycles and, having remained vacant as of the adoption of the 2020 Housing Element, must be allowed to develop “by right” if at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for lower income households. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the draft ordinance on October 14, 2025, and unanimously recommended the Council approve the zoning ordinance text and map amendments without any recommended changes. The October 14, 2025, Planning Commission staff report is available to view online.

Packet Pg. 387
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 4 Environmental Review
The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085 (a), which provides that rezoning actions required to implement a certified Housing Element are not “projects” for purposes of CEQA. The adoption of these zoning text and zoning map amendments serves as implementation of Activity 2.5 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update in a manner that is consistent with State Law. The 2020-2028 Housing Element Update was approved and certified by the HCD in June of 2020. Because this rezoning effort implements a schedule of action contained in an approved housing element, the rezoning is statutorily exempt from CEQA under the section identified above.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy
^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance
^Location Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District
^General Plan Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District ^Zoning - Housing Opportunity Overlay District
^CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) - Corrective Action Letter October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
Packet Pg. 388

DRAFT NEW ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING AMENDING TITLE 18
(ZONING), CHAPTER 18.31 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) BY
AMENDING SECTION 18.31.030-B (DENSITY REGULATIONS –
RESIDENTIAL USES) AND CHAPTER 18 DIVISION V (OVERLAY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS), BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.59 (HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY DISTRICT), THEREBY CHANGING AND
INTRODUCING STANDARDS AND INCENTIVES FOR MULTIPLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES

WITHIN THE CITY WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE
HOUSING NEEDS ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT

AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF REDDING

ZONING MAP ESTABLISHING SAID OVERLAY DISTRICT ON
SPECIFIED PROPERTIES (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 074-160- 016, 108-150-001, 108-150-006, 108-150-007, 110-440-007, 110-440-008, 067- 040-008, 108-100-019, 108-100-021, 108-050-041, 108-050-044, 109-080-013, 117-200-005, 117-200-006, 112-240-025, 110-450-003, 110-450-004, 110-450- 005, AND 110-450-007) LOCATED IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE CITY OF REDDING AND AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2020-2028 HOUSING
ELEMENT.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.31 (Residential Districts), Section 18.31.030 (Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.31.030 Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards Schedule 18.31.030-A: Lot Area and Width—Residential Uses; Schedule 18.31.030-B: Density Regulations—Residential Uses; and Schedule 18.31.030-C: Development Regulations— Residential Uses are included in this section. The numbers in the tables refer to standards immediately below the table.

Schedule 18.31.030-A: Lot Area and Width—Residential Uses Districts Minimum Lot Area (sq ft) Minimum Lot Width2 Minimum Lot Depth RE-1 30,000 100
100 feet
RE-2 14,000 85
RS-2 10,000 80
RS-2.5 8,000 75
RS-3 7,000 (8,000 sq ft corner lot) 70
RS-3.5 6,0001 (7,000 sq ft corner lot) 65 (70-foot corner lot) RS-4 60 (70-foot corner lot)
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Districts Minimum Lot Area (sq ft) Minimum Lot Width2 Minimum Lot Depth RM-6
10,0001 80
RM-9
RM-10
RM-12
RM-15
RM-18 15,000 100 RM-20
RM-30 30,000 100
Notes:
1 Lot sizes may be reduced for small-lot subdivisions in accordance with Section 18.31.050. 2 Applies to street frontage; cul-de-sac lot width may be reduced to 35 feet; flag lots must have a minimum street frontage of 20 feet for a single flag lot; and 15 feet per lot for adjacent flag lots. Also, see Title 17, Subdivisions. See Section 18.46.080 (Nonconforming Parcels) Schedule 18.31.030-B: Density Regulations—Residential Uses. The base number of dwelling units permitted on any “RE,” “RS,” or “RM” parcel shall be computed by deducting areas of slopes over 20 percent (20%) and any areas subject to flooding from a 100-year-storm event (as determined by FEMA or the Citywide Master Storm Study (Montgomery-Watson Report) or by other flood studies acceptable to the City) and multiplying the remainder (gross developable acreage) by the base density of the district as shown in Schedule 18.31.030-B.

Schedule 18.31.030-B depicts the lower and upper ends of the density range for each single-family residential district based on General Plan land use classifications. The schedule also establishes the maximum density permitted in each “RM” District. That density is expressed in the maximum number of dwelling units permitted based on the net area of the lot. This code specifically is structured to correct the density from gross to net for “RM” Districts. The schedule also provides for increases in density beyond those depicted on the zoning map under certain specified circumstances.

Schedule 18.31.030-B: Density Regulations—Residential Uses Districts Base Density:

Units per gross
developable
acre
Maximum
Density: Units per
gross developable
acre
Density Increases
RE-1 1 1 Increases over the base density shown on the zoning map and as reflected in this table shall be allowed only under one or more of the following circumstances:

1. The Planning Commission determines that the
additional site and building design elements listed in
Section 18.31.040, for single-family developments,
are in evidence.

2. In single-family districts, the base density may be
adjusted within a given range to reflect the density
RE-2 2 2
RS-2 2 3.5
RS-2.5 2.5 3.5
RS-3 3 3.5
RS-3.5 3.5 6
RS-4 4 6
One dwelling unit
per net square
foot:

Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Districts Base Density:

Units per gross
developable
acre
Maximum
Density: Units per
gross developable
acre
Density Increases
RM-6 6 5,500 sf allowed by the General Plan in effect on October 1, 2000 (previous General Plan), in accordance with
General Plan policy. To attain the adjusted density, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
planning commission that the adjusted density is
acceptable considering the following factors: site
topography, public-street access, availability of
utilities, existing neighborhood characteristics,
including the average density of surrounding
development.

3. A density bonus consistent with Government Code
Section 65915, et seq., is approved.

4. Housing developments for low/moderate income
senior citizens may be approved at two hundred
percent of base density for one-bedroom units and one
hundred fifty percent of base density for two-bedroom
units for apartment projects in the "RM" District.

5. The base density for any residential development in
the "RM-12" District, "RM-15" District, or "RM-18"
District that reserves a minimum of 20 percent of the
residential units for extremely low, very low, and/or
low-income households shall be twenty units per acre.

RM-9 9 4,500 sf
RM-10 10 3,500 sf
RM-12 12 3,000 sf
RM-15 15 2,500 sf
RM-18 18 2,225 sf
RM-20 20 1,850 sf
RM-30 30 1,450 sf
Notes:
• Density credit shall not be given for lands encumbered by public or quasi-public agency utility easements for which compensation for said easement has been paid.
• Because development sites and types differ significantly, maximum residential density in the “RM” District may be based on either “gross developable acres” or “net developable acres,” whichever provides the highest number of dwelling units.

Schedule 18.31.030-C: Development Regulations—”Residential” Districts “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Building Form and Location
Maximum
Height (feet) 35 35 45 50 (2)
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Minimum Yards
(feet)
Front 25 15 15 15
(1)
(8) all districts
See Section 18.31.050 for
small-lot subdivisions
(9)
Side
Aggregate 30’;
no side less
than 10’
15 feet total; no
side yard less
than 5 feet
(except small-lot
subdivisions
(Section

18.31.050)
5; 10 for
2 or more
stories
10 (2); (3); (4)—for RM
districts
(8) for RE & RS districts
(9)
(10)
Corner Side 15 15 15 15
(8) for RE & RS districts
See Section

18.46.040 for
Existing
Nonconforming
building setbacks
(9)
(10)
Rear 15 15 15 15 (2)
(8) for RE & RS districts
Distance Between
Main
Structures
— —
Single-story—10 ft
1 & 2 story—15 ft 3
or more stories—20ft
Maximum Lot
Coverage 40% 40% (7) RM districts only
Vehicle Accommodation - See Chapter 18.41, Off-Street Parking and Loading Limitations on
Parking
Frontage
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Front-yard setback area
may not be used for
required parking; minimum
garage and carport setback
of 20 feet where garage or
carport faces a street
Garage Frontage
Limitations Yes Yes — — (6)
Other Standards
Accessory
Uses/Structures See Section 18.43.020
Accessory Dwelling
Units
(ADUs) or Junior
ADUs
See Section 18.43.140
Buffer Yards See Section 18.40.020 – RM Districts Only
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Common and
Private Open
Space
(5) RM districts only
Design Criteria For discretionary permits, see Section 18.40.050 Off-Street Parking (11)
Roof-Mounted
Mechanical
Equipment
Prohibited — See Section 18.40.130
Setbacks from
Creeks and
Riparian Areas
See Chapter 18.48
Sky Plane See Section 18.40.150 — RM districts only
(1) Front-Yard Setback. The required front-yard setback may be determined through averaging provided that when four (4) or more parcels in a block have been improved with structures, the minimum front-yard setback shall be the average of the setbacks on the improved parcels if this average is less than the minimum setback required by this chapter. The maximum setback in the “RE” and “RS” Districts for lots less than forty thousand square feet (40,000 ft2) is fifty feet (50’), or forty percent (40%) of the lot depth, whichever is greater unless a zoning exception is obtained.
(2) Multi-story Limitations. In order to limit impacts to the rear-yard privacy of single-family developments and to ensure adequate building bulk and height transitions between single-family and multiple-family districts, the following “RM” multistory setback is established:

The minimum setback to a second or higher story, where an “RM” District abuts an “RE” or “RS” District shall be twenty-five feet (25’). For discretionary permits, including subdivision of land, the approving body may require second-story setbacks up to fifty feet (50’) if, given the circumstances of the site and surrounding properties—such as building size and height, topography, and similar considerations—the additional setback is necessary to achieve the intent of this section.
(3) Minimum Yards. Projections into yards are allowed for decks, porches, bay windows, roof eaves and similar features; see Section 18.40.030, Building Projections into Setback Areas. (4) Minimum Side Yard. The minimum side yard shall be increased two feet (2’) per story for each story over two (2) in a multiple-family building, unless the upper story is set back ten feet (10’) from the building face. Where a dwelling fronts on a side yard, the side yard shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15’).
(5) Private and Common Outdoor Living Area. Each multiple-family residential development (two (2) or more dwelling units on a single lot) shall provide private and common areas for its tenants. Private areas typically consist of covered or uncovered Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) balconies, decks, patios, porches, fenced yards, and similar areas outside the residence. A minimum of eighty square feet (80 ft2) with a minimum depth of ten feet (10’) shall be provided with each dwelling unit. The minimum depth can be reduced to six feet (6’) for upper-story units.

Common outdoor-activity areas typically consist of landscape areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, shade elements, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular access ways, trash enclosures, and similar items shall be developed as common areas with the type of attributes described above. Common areas in developments of twenty (20) or more dwelling units must be of sufficient size and arrangement such that they allow adequate area for gathering, play, and other outdoor activities for their tenants and guests.
(6) Garage Frontage Limitations. Where garage doors face a street, garage fronts (in linear feet) shall not exceed 45 percent (45%) of the width of the lot as measured at the proposed building setback line. This limitation can be exceeded by an additional 10 percent (10%) of the lot frontage where the garage extends beyond the front door of the residence and is separated by a depth of no more than 6 feet (6’), measured from a line extended parallel to the plane of the front door. In the case of garages designed to accommodate three (3) or more vehicles, at least one garage front must be offset from the remaining garage fronts by at least two feet (2’).
(7) Maximum Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage calculations in the “RM” Districts include buildings, driveways, parking areas, and trash-enclosure areas. Schedule 18.31.030-D indicates the maximum allowable lot coverage in each “RM” District.

Private
open
space
Common
open
space
Front
Setback
Section 18.31.030-C
Street
Rear
setback

MULTIPLE FAMILY (APARTMENTS)

RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Schedule 18.31.030-D: Maximum Lot Coverage
Zoning District Maximum Lot Coverage
RM-6
RM-9
RM-10
RM-12
RM-15
RM-18
RM-20
RM-30
60%
65%
70%
70%
75%
75%
80%
85%
(8) Recreational Vehicle Storage. Recreational vehicles, including, but not limited to, motor homes, travel trailers, detached campers/shells, boats, and trailers of all types shall not be stored within any front-yard or street side-yard setback unless a zoning exception is granted pursuant to Chapter 18.15. Such vehicles are permitted to be stored in interior side-yard or rear-yard setback areas. Items stored within the setback areas must be placed so as to prevent violations of the California Building Code with respect to egress, natural light, and ventilation and shall not contribute to or constitute blight, as defined by the Redding Municipal Code. The regulations of this section do not apply to: (1) Class B motor homes (commonly known as “van conversions”) which otherwise comply with applicable parking standards and (2) temporary parking of recreational vehicles as necessary for customary active loading and unloading activities associated with the intended use of the vehicles for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours in a one-week period. (9) Storage Buildings. No storage buildings or similar structures shall be placed or erected in any front-yard or corner side-yard setback area regardless of size. (10) Corner Side Setback Exception. Corner side setbacks on lots created prior to adoption of this Code (October 1, 2002) may utilize the corner side setback required by the Zoning Code at the time of lot creation, but in no case shall it be less than ten feet (10’). (11) With the exception of driveways, walkways, and porches, no portion of a single-family lot between the front lot line and the dwelling shall be paved, with the following exceptions:
a) An area no greater than twenty feet (20’) in width adjacent to the side of a driveway that is nearest to an abutting lot may be paved and utilized for off-street parking (with the exception of recreational vehicles in accordance with Schedule 18.31.030-C). b) At the discretion of the Director, additional paving for a driveway for access to the rear yard for additional parking of vehicles may be provided. Additional paving may be allowed only when it is proven that the additional paving will not be injurious to public safety or negatively impact the abutting lots.
c) Circular driveways constructed pursuant to an encroachment permit approved by the City Engineer may be utilized for off-street parking.
d) Corner lots are permitted an additional driveway on the rear on-third of the lot.

Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Off-street parking on a single-family lot between the front lot line and the dwelling and in the case of corner lots the corner side lot line and the dwelling shall be limited to driveways and paved parking areas adjacent to driveways as described above.

Section 2. Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.59 (Housing Opportunity Overlay District), Chapter 18.59 is added to read in its entirety as follows:

18.59 “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District

18.59.010 - Purpose.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c) as well as the City’s General Plan, the purpose of the “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District is to:

1. Implement programs established in the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update to incentivize the development of by-right residential development on parcels identified as vacant sites and which provide capacity for the City to meet its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

2. Create economic opportunity for diverse and affordable housing choices to be developed in areas deemed appropriate and zoned for multiple-family residential development.

3. Encourage the development of housing projects which would increase the supply of marketrate and income-qualifying housing types which help to achieve adequate levels of workforce housing.

18.59.020 - Applicability and Zoning Map Designator
The “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District is combined with any “RM-12” through “RM-18” Residential Multiple Family Zoning District on parcels of land that have been specifically identified in the City’s 2020-2028 Housing Element as vacant residential sites and which have yet to be developed. An amendment to the zoning of parcels identified in the Housing Element with this overlay district may be initiated by the application of a property owner or owners, or upon the initiative of the Director of Development Services, Planning Commission or City Council. The boundary of the overlay district may be applied to the entire parcel identified or applied only to the portions of the parcels which are unconstrained by slope, floodplain or environmental issues and which meet the provisions of California Government Code Section 65583.2.

18.59.030 - Definitions
For purposes of this Section, the following definitions are established:

1. By-Right Use. A use that is permitted in the zoning district or overlay district without any discretionary review being required and for which the approval would not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

2. Household. A person living alone, or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments, and all minor children.

3. Housing Development Project. A residential or mixed-use development meeting the criteria and definition established in California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).

4. Lower Income Household. A household that is either an extremely low-income, very lowincome or low-income household as established under the latest State of California income limits for Shasta County and published by the Department of Housing and Community Development. This applies to both for-rent and for-sale housing.

18.59.040 - Development Standards
Housing Development Projects proposed in accordance with this section shall be subject to the following development standards:

1. Density. Multiple-family residential developments and mixed-use developments meeting the criteria set forth in California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2) may be permitted at a density of twenty dwelling units per gross developable acre if at least twenty percent of the units proposed with the project would qualify as affordable to lower income households.

2. Design.
a. Multiple-family residential housing development projects proposed in accordance with this section shall be subject to the same, objective development standards required by the base district.
b. Mixed-use housing development projects proposed in accordance with this section shall be subject to the objective development standards set forth in the “MU” Mixed-Use Overlay District, Chapter 18.54.050 or the “MU-N” Mixed Use Neighborhood Overlay District, Chapter 18.55.050, whichever is deemed appropriate as determined by the Director of Development Services.

18.59.050 – Procedure
Notwithstanding the permitting requirements established for the base district, housing development projects qualifying for the provisions of this overlay district shall be considered a byright use permitted without any discretionary review required for approval of the project.

Qualifying projects shall be submitted to the Development Services Department with an application for a building permit.

Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

18.59.060 - Conflict Between Regulations.

A. If the regulations set forth in this chapter or other applicable sections referenced by this chapter conflicts with Redding Municipal Code Chapter 18.26 or California Government Code Section 65915 or other applicable State law, State law shall supersede this chapter.

B. Where a conflict occurs between the HO overlay district and any other section of the zoning code or any provision of the Redding Municipal Code, the Director of Development Services will determine which regulation prevails.

C. Where the maximum density of the base district is less than twenty units per acre, the maximum density for a housing development project qualifying under this section shall supersede the density set forth in the base district.

Section 3. Finding of fact: the City finds and declares as follows:

A. The Zoning Map of the City of Redding is incorporated in and made part of Municipal Code Title 18, known as the City of Redding Zoning Ordinance.

B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing pertaining to the amendment on October 14, 2025, and recommended that the City Council adopt the attached amendment to the Zoning Map.

C. The City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 4, 2025, prior to the first reading of the ordinance.

D. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans.

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

Section 4. The Council hereby finds and determines that the enactment of this Ordinance is exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) because CEQA does not apply to a rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583 of the Government Code. This rezoning action implements Activity 2.5 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element.

Section 5. The boundaries of the districts referred to in Section 18.01.050 of the Redding Municipal Code, as designated on a map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Redding, California” dated January 7, 2003, are hereby altered as set forth on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof by:

REZONING: 19 Parcels Identified in “Appendix A” Table 3 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update – Approximately 79 Gross Acres
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) FROM: “RM-12,” “RM-15” and “RM-18” Residential Multiple-Family District
TO: “RM-12-HO,” “RM-15-HO,” and “RM-18-HO” Residential
Multiple-Family District with a Housing Opportunity Overlay Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision will remain in effect to the extent permitted by law.

Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) calendar days after the date of its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption thereof and cause publication according to law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Redding at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of December, 2025, and was duly read and adopted at a regular meeting on the ____ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________
JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:
_______________________________ ____________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

STRIKEOUT ORDINANCE
OLD LANGUAGE: STRUCK OUT
NEW LANGUAGE: UNDERLINE
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING AMENDING TITLE 18
(ZONING), CHAPTER 18.31 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) BY
AMENDING SECTION 18.31.030-B (DENSITY REGULATIONS –
RESIDENTIAL USES) AND CHAPTER 18 DIVISION V (OVERLAY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS), BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.59 (HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY DISTRICT), THEREBY CHANGING AND
INTRODUCING STANDARDS AND INCENTIVES FOR MULTIPLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES

WITHIN THE CITY WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE
HOUSING NEEDS ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT

AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF REDDING

Schedule 18.31.030-A: Lot Area and Width—Residential Uses Districts Minimum Lot Area (sq ft) Minimum Lot Width2 Minimum Lot Depth RE-1 30,000 100
100 feet
RE-2 14,000 85
RS-2 10,000 80
RS-2.5 8,000 75
RS-3 7,000 (8,000 sq ft corner lot) 70
RS-3.5 6,0001 (7,000 sq ft corner lot) 65 (70-foot corner lot) RS-4 60 (70-foot corner lot)
RM-6
10,0001 RM-9 80
RM-10
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Districts Minimum Lot Area (sq ft) Minimum Lot Width2 Minimum Lot Depth RM-12
RM-15
RM-18 15,000 100 RM-20
RM-30 30,000 100
Notes:
1 Lot sizes may be reduced for small-lot subdivisions in accordance with Section 18.31.050. 2 Applies to street frontage; cul-de-sac lot width may be reduced to 35 feet; flag lots must have a minimum street frontage of 20 feet for a single flag lot; and 15 feet per lot for adjacent flag lots. Also, see Title 17, Subdivisions. See Section 18.46.080 (Nonconforming Parcels) Schedule 18.31.030-B: Density Regulations—Residential Uses. The base number of dwelling units permitted on any “RE,” “RS,” or “RM” parcel shall be computed by deducting areas of slopes over 20 percent (20%) and any areas subject to flooding from a 100-year-storm event (as determined by FEMA or the Citywide Master Storm Study (Montgomery-Watson Report) or by other flood studies acceptable to the City) and multiplying the remainder (gross developable acreage) by the base density of the district as shown in Schedule 18.31.030-B.

Schedule 18.31.030-B: Density Regulations—Residential Uses Districts Base Density:

1. The Planning Commission determines that the
additional site and building design elements listed in
Section 18.31.040, for single-family developments,
are in evidence.

2. In single-family districts, the base density may be
adjusted within a given range to reflect the density
allowed by the General Plan in effect on October 1,
2000 (previous General Plan), in accordance with
General Plan policy. To attain the adjusted density, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
planning commission that the adjusted density is
acceptable considering the following factors: site
RE-2 2 2
RS-2 2 3.5
RS-2.5 2.5 3.5
RS-3 3 3.5
RS-3.5 3.5 6
RS-4 4 6
One dwelling unit
per net square
foot:

RM-6 6 5,500 sf
RM-9 9 4,500 sf
RM-10 10 3,500 sf
RM-12 12 3,000 sf
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Districts Base Density:

Units per gross
developable
acre
Maximum
Density: Units per
gross developable
acre
Density Increases
RM-15 15 2,500 sf topography, public-street access, availability of utilities, existing neighborhood characteristics,
including the average density of surrounding
development.

3. A density bonus consistent with Government Code
Section 65915, et seq., is approved.

5. The base density for any residential development in
the "RM-12" District, "RM-15" District, or "RM-18"
District that reserves a minimum of 35 20 percent of
the residential units for extremely low, very low,
and/or low-income households shall be twenty units
per acre.

RM-18 18 2,225 sf
RM-20 20 1,850 sf
RM-30 30 1,450 sf
Notes:
• Density credit shall not be given for lands encumbered by public or quasi-public agency utility easements for which compensation for said easement has been paid.
• Because development sites and types differ significantly, maximum residential density in the “RM” District may be based on either “gross developable acres” or “net developable acres,” whichever provides the highest number of dwelling units.

Schedule 18.31.030-C: Development Regulations—”Residential” Districts “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Building Form and Location
Maximum
Height (feet) 35 35 45 50 (2)
Minimum Yards
(feet)
Front 25 15 15 15
(1)
(8) all districts
See Section 18.31.050 for
small-lot subdivisions
(9)
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Side
Aggregate 30’;
no side less
than 10’
15 feet total; no
side yard less
than 5 feet
(except small-lot
subdivisions
(Section

18.31.050)
5; 10 for
2 or more
stories
10 (2); (3); (4)—for RM
districts
(8) for RE & RS districts
(9)
(10)
Corner Side 15 15 15 15
(8) for RE & RS districts
See Section

18.46.040 for
Existing
Nonconforming
building setbacks
(9)
(10)
Rear 15 15 15 15 (2)
(8) for RE & RS districts
Distance Between
Main
Structures
— —
Single-story—10 ft
1 & 2 story—15 ft 3
or more stories—20ft
Maximum Lot
Coverage 40% 40% (7) RM districts only
Vehicle Accommodation - See Chapter 18.41, Off-Street Parking and Loading Limitations on
Parking
Frontage
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Front-yard setback area
may not be used for
required parking; minimum
garage and carport setback
of 20 feet where garage or
carport faces a street
Garage Frontage
Limitations Yes Yes — — (6)
Other Standards
Accessory
Uses/Structures See Section 18.43.020
Accessory Dwelling
Units
(ADUs) or Junior
ADUs
See Section 18.43.140
Buffer Yards See Section 18.40.020 – RM Districts Only
Common and
Private Open
Space
(5) RM districts only
Design Criteria For discretionary permits, see Section 18.40.050 Off-Street Parking (11)
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) “RE-1” “RE-2”
“RS-2”
through
“RS-4”
“RM-6”
through
“RM-18”
“RM-20”
through
“RM-30”
Additional Regulations
(Numbers refer to
standards immediately
below the table)
Roof-Mounted
Mechanical
Equipment
Prohibited — See Section 18.40.130
Setbacks from
Creeks and
Riparian Areas
See Chapter 18.48
Sky Plane See Section 18.40.150 — RM districts only
(1) Front-Yard Setback. The required front-yard setback may be determined through averaging provided that when four (4) or more parcels in a block have been improved with structures, the minimum front-yard setback shall be the average of the setbacks on the improved parcels if this average is less than the minimum setback required by this chapter. The maximum setback in the “RE” and “RS” Districts for lots less than forty thousand square feet (40,000 ft2) is fifty feet (50’), or forty percent (40%) of the lot depth, whichever is greater unless a zoning exception is obtained.
(2) Multi-story Limitations. In order to limit impacts to the rear-yard privacy of single-family developments and to ensure adequate building bulk and height transitions between single-family and multiple-family districts, the following “RM” multistory setback is established:

The minimum setback to a second or higher story, where an “RM” District abuts an “RE” or “RS” District shall be twenty-five feet (25’). For discretionary permits, including subdivision of land, the approving body may require second-story setbacks up to fifty feet (50’) if, given the circumstances of the site and surrounding properties—such as building size and height, topography, and similar considerations—the additional setback is necessary to achieve the intent of this section.
(3) Minimum Yards. Projections into yards are allowed for decks, porches, bay windows, roof eaves and similar features; see Section 18.40.030, Building Projections into Setback Areas. (4) Minimum Side Yard. The minimum side yard shall be increased two feet (2’) per story for each story over two (2) in a multiple-family building, unless the upper story is set back ten feet (10’) from the building face. Where a dwelling fronts on a side yard, the side yard shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15’).
(5) Private and Common Outdoor Living Area. Each multiple-family residential development (two (2) or more dwelling units on a single lot) shall provide private and common areas for its tenants. Private areas typically consist of covered or uncovered balconies, decks, patios, porches, fenced yards, and similar areas outside the residence. A minimum of eighty square feet (80 ft2) with a minimum depth of ten feet (10’) shall be provided with each dwelling unit. The minimum depth can be reduced to six feet (6’) for upper-story units.

Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Common outdoor-activity areas typically consist of landscape areas, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, shade elements, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development. All areas not improved with buildings, parking, vehicular access ways, trash enclosures, and similar items shall be developed as common areas with the type of attributes described above. Common areas in developments of twenty (20) or more dwelling units must be of sufficient size and arrangement such that they allow adequate area for gathering, play, and other outdoor activities for their tenants and guests.
(6) Garage Frontage Limitations. Where garage doors face a street, garage fronts (in linear feet) shall not exceed 45 percent (45%) of the width of the lot as measured at the proposed building setback line. This limitation can be exceeded by an additional 10 percent (10%) of the lot frontage where the garage extends beyond the front door of the residence and is separated by a depth of no more than 6 feet (6’), measured from a line extended parallel to the plane of the front door. In the case of garages designed to accommodate three (3) or more vehicles, at least one garage front must be offset from the remaining garage fronts by at least two feet (2’).
(7) Maximum Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage calculations in the “RM” Districts include buildings, driveways, parking areas, and trash-enclosure areas. Schedule 18.31.030-D indicates the maximum allowable lot coverage in each “RM” District.

Schedule 18.31.030-D: Maximum Lot Coverage
Zoning District Maximum Lot Coverage
RM-6
RM-9
RM-10
RM-12
RM-15
RM-18
RM-20
RM-30
60%
65%
70%
70%
75%
75%
80%
85%
(8) Recreational Vehicle Storage. Recreational vehicles, including, but not limited to, motor homes, travel trailers, detached campers/shells, boats, and trailers of all types shall not be Private
open
space
Common
open
space
Front
Setback
Section 18.31.030-C
Street
Rear
setback

MULTIPLE FAMILY (APARTMENTS)

RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) stored within any front-yard or street side-yard setback unless a zoning exception is granted pursuant to Chapter 18.15. Such vehicles are permitted to be stored in interior side-yard or rear-yard setback areas. Items stored within the setback areas must be placed so as to prevent violations of the California Building Code with respect to egress, natural light, and ventilation and shall not contribute to or constitute blight, as defined by the Redding Municipal Code. The regulations of this section do not apply to: (1) Class B motor homes (commonly known as “van conversions”) which otherwise comply with applicable parking standards and (2) temporary parking of recreational vehicles as necessary for customary active loading and unloading activities associated with the intended use of the vehicles for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours in a one-week period. (9) Storage Buildings. No storage buildings or similar structures shall be placed or erected in any front-yard or corner side-yard setback area regardless of size. (10) Corner Side Setback Exception. Corner side setbacks on lots created prior to adoption of this Code (October 1, 2002) may utilize the corner side setback required by the Zoning Code at the time of lot creation, but in no case shall it be less than ten feet (10’). (11) With the exception of driveways, walkways, and porches, no portion of a single-family lot between the front lot line and the dwelling shall be paved, with the following exceptions:
a) An area no greater than twenty feet (20’) in width adjacent to the side of a driveway that is nearest to an abutting lot may be paved and utilized for off-street parking (with the exception of recreational vehicles in accordance with Schedule 18.31.030-C). b) At the discretion of the Director, additional paving for a driveway for access to the rear yard for additional parking of vehicles may be provided. Additional paving may be allowed only when it is proven that the additional paving will not be injurious to public safety or negatively impact the abutting lots.
c) Circular driveways constructed pursuant to an encroachment permit approved by the City Engineer may be utilized for off-street parking.
d) Corner lots are permitted an additional driveway on the rear on-third of the lot.

Off-street parking on a single-family lot between the front lot line and the dwelling and in the case of corner lots the corner side lot line and the dwelling shall be limited to driveways and paved parking areas adjacent to driveways as described above.

18.59 “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District

18.59.010 - Purpose.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(c) as well as the City’s General Plan, the purpose of the “HO” Housing Opportunity Overlay District is to:

Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

2. Create economic opportunity for diverse and affordable housing choices to be developed in areas deemed appropriate and zoned for multiple-family residential development.

3. Encourage the development of housing projects which would increase the supply of marketrate and income-qualifying housing types which help to achieve adequate levels of workforce housing.

18.59.030 - Definitions
For purposes of this Section, the following definitions are established:

2. Household. A person living alone, or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments, and all minor children.

3. Housing Development Project. A residential or mixed-use development meeting the criteria and definition established in California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2).

18.59.040 - Development Standards
Housing Development Projects proposed in accordance with this section shall be subject to the following development standards:

Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

Qualifying projects shall be submitted to the Development Services Department with an application for a building permit.

18.59.060 - Conflict Between Regulations.

B. Where a conflict occurs between the HO overlay district and any other section of the zoning code or any provision of the Redding Municipal Code (RMC), the Director of Development Services will determine which regulation prevails.

Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: ^RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) H9
H7
H6
H4
H1
H16
H15
H13
H11
H10
§¨¦5
Old
Oregon Trl
Oasis Rd
Lake Blvd
Shasta View Dr
Hilltop Dr
Hartnell Ave Victor Ave
Bechelli Ln
Rancho Rd
ÅÄ299
E Bonnyview Rd
N Market St
E Cypress Ave
Court St
S Market St
Canby Rd
Park Marina Dr
Hawley Rd
Twin
View Blvd
Alta Mesa Dr
ÅÄ44
Dana Dr
College View Dr
Benton Dr
Beltline Rd
Mistletoe Ln
Airpark Dr
Tarmac Rd
Radio Ln
§¨¦5
Quartz Hill Rd
Placer St
Hollow Ln
Eureka Way
Churn Creek Rd
ÅÄ273
ÅÄ273
Old Oregon Trl
Buenaventura Blvd
S Bonnyview Rd
Old Alturas Rd
Proposed Housing
Opportunity Overlay District
P:\Planning\Pro Projects\HousingOpportunityOverlayDistrict\HousPrint Date: 8/29/2025 ingOpportunityOverlayDistrict.aprx
/
0 0.5 1
Miles
Sacramento River
Legend
Eligible Sites
Redding City Limit
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: ^Location Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) H9
H7
H6
H4
H1
H16
H15
H13
H11
H10
§¨¦5
Old
Oregon Trl
Oasis Rd
Lake Blvd
Shasta View Dr
Hilltop Dr
Hartnell Ave Victor Ave
Bechelli Ln
Rancho Rd
ÅÄ299
E Bonnyview Rd
N Market St
E Cypress Ave
Court St
S Market St
Canby Rd
Park Marina Dr
Hawley Rd
Twin
View Blvd
Alta Mesa Dr
ÅÄ44
Dana Dr
College View Dr
Benton Dr
Beltline Rd
Mistletoe Ln
Airpark Dr
Tarmac Rd
Radio Ln
§¨¦5
Quartz Hill Rd
Placer St
Hollow Ln
Eureka Way
Churn Creek Rd
ÅÄ273
ÅÄ273
Old Oregon Trl
Buenaventura Blvd
S Bonnyview Rd
Old Alturas Rd
Proposed Housing Opportunity
Overlay District & Current General Plan
P:\Planning\Pro Projects\HousingOpportunityOverlayDistrict\HousPrint Date: 8/29/2025 ingOpportunityOverlayDistrict.aprx
/
0 0.5 1
Miles
Sacramento River
Legend
Eligible Sites
Redding City Limit
GP Land Use
5P
1 to 2
1 to 5
2 to 3.5

3.5 to 6
6 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 30
LO
GO
SC
GC
NC
RC
HC
GI
HI
MUC
AO
AS
PF-I
PF-I-S
PK
PK-G
REC
GWY
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: ^General Plan Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) H9
H7
H6
H4
H1
H16
H15
H13
H11
H10
§¨¦5
Old
Oregon Trl
Oasis Rd
Lake Blvd
Shasta View Dr
Hilltop Dr
Hartnell Ave Victor Ave
Bechelli Ln
Rancho Rd
ÅÄ299
E Bonnyview Rd
N Market St
E Cypress Ave
Court St
S Market St
Canby Rd
Park Marina Dr
Hawley Rd
Twin
View Blvd
Alta Mesa Dr
ÅÄ44
Dana Dr
College View Dr
Benton Dr
Beltline Rd
Mistletoe Ln
Airpark Dr
Tarmac Rd
Radio Ln
§¨¦5
Quartz Hill Rd
Placer St
Hollow Ln
Eureka Way
Churn Creek Rd
ÅÄ273
ÅÄ273
Old Oregon Trl
Buenaventura Blvd
S Bonnyview Rd
Old Alturas Rd
Proposed Housing Opportunity
Overlay District & Current Zoning
P:\Planning\Pro Projects\HousingOpportunityOverlayDistrict\HousPrint Date: 8/29/2025 ingOpportunityOverlayDistrict.aprx
/
0 0.5 1
Miles
Sacramento River
Legend
Eligible Sites
Redding City Limit
Zoning District
Rural Single Family
Single Family
Multiple Family
Mixed Use
Specific Plan
Office
Retail
Industry
Open Space
Public
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: ^Zoning - Housing Opportunity Overlay District (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 7, 2025
Barry Tippin, City Manager
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
RE: City of Redding Housing Element Program Implementation - Corrective Action Letter
Dear Barry Tippin:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the City obligations under the housing element and hereby issues its written findings that the City of Redding (City) has failed to implement Program Action 2.5 (Zoning Code Amendment: “RM”, Residential Multiple Family District) to allow by-right processing of sites identified in previous housing elements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c).

HCD requests that the City review this correspondence and provide a written response to these findings within 30 days and no later than September 5, 2025. HCD will review and consider the City’s written response before taking any action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivisions (i) and (j). As noted below, such action may include revoking HCD’s finding that City housing element is in substantial compliance with California’s Housing Element Law and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.

Housing Element Law
HCD must review any action or failure to act by a City that it determines to be inconsistent with an adopted housing element or section 65583 generally, and it must issue written findings to the City accordingly.1 HCD must give the City a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to these findings.2 If HCD does not receive a written response from the City within 30 days, or the response does not demonstrate that the program action has been implemented, then HCD will revoke its findings that the City’s housing element substantially complies with Housing Element Law.3 1 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)
2 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A)
3 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(C)
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: ^CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) - Corrective Action Letter (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025- Barry Tippin, City Manager

Page 2 ends

Additionally, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General when a City takes actions that are inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Government Code sections 65583 and 65915, among other laws.4
Findings
On June 19, 2020, HCD found the City housing element in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. HCD based its compliance finding on, among other things, a commitment to implement Program 2.5. This program commits to rezoning Prior Identified Sites identified to accommodate the low- and very low-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and was to be completed in FY 2020-2021. The Annual Progress Report (APR) from 2024 states that zoning ordinance amendment is expected to be updated by the end of 2025. As this rezoning action was required to be completed within three years from the date of adoption (June 2, 2023), this new expected completion date exceeds the statutory completion date5. Based on the submittal timeline, HCD finds that the City has failed to implement this required rezone program action within the statutory required timeframe.

Additionally, HCD’s June 19, 2020, compliance letter was based on the City’s responsibility to complete Programs according to timeline commitments. As the commitment date has passed for the programs listed below, HCD requests that the City provide an update on the status, specific timeline for completion including any remaining steps of the following Programs:
• Program 2.6 (Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance) was due by June 2, 2021. The APR from 2024 states that the ordinance was brought into compliance in 2020 and that the Development Services Department intends to evaluate and update the ordinance if necessary, by the end of the 2025 Fiscal Year. The City should confirm that the Program has been completed and provide the accompanying documentation (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, zoning codes, etc.) in addition to providing a timeline for updated program actions. • Program 2.8 (Zoning Code Amendment to Facilitate Development of Low Barrier Navigation Centers) was due by June 2, 2021.The APR from 2024 states that the zoning ordinance amendment is expected to be updated by the end of 2025. • Program 2.9 (Zoning Code Amendment to Provide Increased Opportunities for Development of Supportive Housing) was due by June 2, 2021. The APR from 2024 states that the zoning ordinance amendment is expected to be updated by the end of 2025.
• Program 2.11 (Review the Homeless Shelter provisions of the Zoning Code for consistency with state law) was due by December 31, 2022. The APR from 2024 states that the zoning ordinance amendment is expected to be updated by the end of 2025.
• Program 2.12 (Amend the Zoning Code to accommodate farmworker housing in appropriate zoning districts in accordance with state law) was due by 4 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j)
5 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A)
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: ^CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) - Corrective Action Letter (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025- Barry Tippin, City Manager

Page 3 ends

December 31, 2022. The APR from 2024 states that the zoning ordinance amendment is expected to be updated by the end of 2025. • Program 2.13 (Review the Density Bonus provisions of the Zoning Code for consistency with state law) was due by December 31, 2022. The APR from 2024 states that the Residential Density Bonus ordinance was updated in 2024 and is in compliance with state law. The City should confirm that the Program has been completed and provide the accompanying documentation (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, zoning codes, etc.).
• Program 4.1(Marketing of City-Owned Parcels) was due by December 31, 2022, and has an ongoing commitment. The APR from 2024 states that the City is in partnership with a local real estate agent to market the City’s surplus properties.

The City should confirm what actions have been completed under the Program and provide the accompanying documentation (e.g., ordinances, resolutions, zoning codes, etc.).

Conclusion
Housing elements are essential to developing a blueprint for growth and are a vital tool to address California’s prolonged housing crisis. Accordingly, state law has established clear disincentives for local jurisdictions that fail to comply with Housing Element Law.

To ensure the City continues to meet the 6th cycle update requirements for a substantially compliant housing element, the City must submit any adopted ordinances or resolutions to HCD for review or documentation that demonstrates that housing element program commits have been met. 6
Various consequences may apply if the City does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General, court-imposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.”7
HCD provides the City until September 5, 2025, to provide a written response to these findings. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Sayed Murad of our staff at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
6 Gov. Code, § 65585.
7 Gov. Code, §§ 65585, subds. (j), (l)(1), (i); 65589.5, subd. (d)(6).

Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: ^CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) - Corrective Action Letter (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO REDDING PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
Conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, recommend that the City Council (1) find that the amendments to the Redding Municipal Code and City of Redding Zoning Map are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and (2) adopt the ordinance amending Title 18, Zoning, of the Redding Municipal Code and amending the City of Redding Zoning Maps, as specified in the draft ordinance.

Background
The City’s 2020–2028 Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on June 2, 2020, and was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 19, 2020. The 2020-2028 Housing Element establishes the City’s strategy for meeting its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) primarily by developing programs or “activities” that the City commits to completing which are intended to remove governmental constraints to residential development. These activities are considered vital to ensuring the City sees its identified RHNA met with real development and/or viable development capacity.

Through Activity 2.5 of the Housing Element, the City committed to rezoning several properties as identified in Appendix A, Table 3 of the adopted Housing Element. In addition, Activity 2.5 ensures that the City complies with State of California Housing laws by permitting a default density of 20 units per acre for projects that meet certain criteria. The proposed amendments and the addition of the Housing Opportunity Overlay District are intended to fulfill Activity 2.5 which reads as follows:

MEETING DATE: October 14, 2025
ITEM NO. 4(b)3
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4(b)3--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding, to consider proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the addition of the Housing Overlay District by (1) Modifying the residential density regulations to be consistent with State law as well as the City’s General Plan (Section 18.31.030-B) and (2) Adding Chapter 18.59 (Housing Opportunity Overlay District) to be consistent with State law as well as the City’s General Plan.

Lily Toy, Planning Manager
Packet Pg. 214 Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)3-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 2 Housing Element Activity 2.5: “RM”, Residential Multiple Family District.

Description. Housing Element law/California Government Code establishes "default densities" that local jurisdictions must establish on vacant lands that can accommodate higher density housing for lower income households. The default density established for Redding is 20 dwelling units per acre. Through previous amendment of the "RM" District regulations, this default density is applied to any proposed development in the"RM-12" through "RM-18" district if a minimum of 35% of the proposed dwelling units were reserved for lower income households. More recent Government Code provisions (CGC section 65583.2) require “by right” development (i.e. no discretionary permit required) on any parcel of land depicted on the previous two Housing Element cycles that reserves at least 20 percent of the dwelling units for lower income households if those lands have yet to be developed. This City does not currently have a mechanism in place to implement this requirement.

The proposed amendments and corresponding state code requirements are attached for your review. Text additions are noted by underlining; deletions have been struck out. The draft ordinance includes provisions that are consistent with current law. The amendment includes mapping changes to those parcels specifically identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element, where the overlay district would be applied and which would make projects eligible for approval without discretionary action by the City in accordance with CGC 65583.2. These parcels have been identified as available for high density housing in the last two Housing Element cycles and, having remained vacant as of the adoption of the 2020 Housing Element, must be allowed to develop “by right” if at least 20 percent of the units are reserved for lower income households.

Packet Pg. 215 Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)3-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 3 Issues/Alternatives
On August 7, 2025 the City of Redding received a corrective action letter from HCD stating that the Activities identified in the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update must be fulfilled, reminding the City of the repercussions for not having a compliant Housing Element update, and requesting a timeline for action to be taken on Activity 2.5, among others. Completing this rezoning to fulfill Activity 2.5 is of special interest to HCD as they review the status of the 2020-2028 Housing Element for compliance with State law. In addition, because this zoning ordinance would also bring the City’s zoning ordinance and Housing Element into compliance with State law, there is not a substantial amount of deviation presented to the Planning Commission as far as what alternatives may be considered. The following alternatives may be available for the Planning Commission:

1. The Commission may make changes to the draft ordinance that would not materially change the outcomes required by the law; or

2. The Commission may direct staff to make changes to the draft ordinance that would not materially change the outcomes required by the law and bring the item back to the Commission for review. Because the State has prioritized this Activity’s prompt completion, Staff would recommend that, if directed to bring the item back with changes, any delay should be scheduled to a date certain that is as expeditious as possible.

Environmental Determination
The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085 (a), which provides that rezoning actions required to implement a certified Housing Element are not “projects” for purposes of CEQA. The adoption of these zoning text and zoning map amendments serve as implementation of Activity 2.5 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update in a manner that is consistent with State Law. The 2020-2028 Housing Element Update was approved and certified by the HCD in June of 2020. Because this rezoning effort implements a schedule of action contained in an approved housing element, the rezoning is statutorily exempt from CEQA under the section identified above.

Conclusion
Adoption of the proposed amendments to the text of the Redding Municipal Code and to the zoning district maps would bring the City’s ordinance and Housing Element into compliance with State law and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The amendments were crafted to comply with the adopted Housing Element and to respond to California Government Code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend adoption of the proposed amendments by the City Council.

Attachments
RZ-2025-01030 Draft Ordinance - Clean Copy
RZ-2025-01030 Draft Strikeout Ordinance
Eligible Sites Updated List - Appendix A, Table 3 of the 2020-2028 Housing Element Update Location Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District
Packet Pg. 216 Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding) Report to Redding Planning Commission October 10, 2025
Re: 4(b)3-- Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding Page 4 General Plan Map - Housing Opportunity Overlay District Zoning - Housing Opportunity Overlay District
Packet Pg. 217 Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: October 14, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (6.2--Rezoning Application RZ-2025-01030, by the City of Redding)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Informational item at the request of City Council.

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2025
ITEM NO. 9.1(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(d)--Oral presentation providing an informational report regarding parolee activity within the City of Redding.

Steve Bade, Interim City
Manager
Packet Pg. 419

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following:
(1) Authorize staff to draft a resolution formalizing the Audit Committee structure establishing the composition of members, term of members, purpose(s) of the committee (include existing delegation under Council Policy 425), and meeting schedule; and (2) Authorize staff to draft a resolution establishing the Financial Oversight Committee structure, specifying the composition of members, term of members, purposes of committee, and meeting schedule.

Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund with this action.

Alternative Action
City Council (Council) could provide staff with alternate direction.

Background/Analysis
On October 22, 2025, the Council directed staff to return with an item considering the creation of a Financial Oversight Committee. Council specified that the committee would be forwardlooking but has not yet indicated the specific scope or function of that committee. Staff has reviewed models from other cities as well as articles published on this topic and are bringing those forward for Council’s consideration. Staff is requesting further direction as to the scope, composition, terms, and meeting schedule. Additionally, staff has reviewed the documentation regarding the existing Audit Committee structure and is recommending that Council consider formalizing that committee’s role to provide greater clarity going forward.

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2025
ITEM NO. 9.1(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.1(e)--Consider establishment of Financial Oversight Committee Steve Bade, Interim City
Manager
Packet Pg. 420
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee Page 2 Models from Other Cities
Staff has reviewed how other cities have formed and maintained Financial Oversight Committees and have identified two major categories of committees. First, similar to the City of Redding (City), many jurisdictions have audit committees responsible for reviewing audits of past expenditures. These committees may review both internal and external audit results in addition to setting audit priorities and identifying areas for future audits. In larger jurisdictions, the internal and external audit functions may be given to separate committees, which work in conjunction with a dedicated City Auditor or City Controller position. Examples of this structure include Las Vegas, San Francisco, and San Jose. Presently, the City combines both the internal and external audit functions into a single Audit Committee, which is a standing committee of the Council. The City does not have an internal auditor or controller position, these types of duties have been delegated to the Financial Services Department through Council Policy 425.

Second, several jurisdictions employ a different kind of committee that participate in the budgeting process by reviewing projections on future revenues and/or expenses. The purpose of these committees is to provide additional technical expertise that can assist in budgetary accuracy and transparency. For example, the City of Las Vegas engages a “Financial Advisory Committee” that includes local stakeholders such as economists, hoteliers, and representatives from the homebuilders’ association. Per that city’s budget summary, these members provide “perspectives into the city’s revenue projections and sometimes, expenditure assumptions.” By including representatives from key local industries, this type of committee can provide insight into local economic trends that will impact projections in revenue. This may present advantages over the City’s current practice, which is to rely on projections from a consulting firm and executive staff, as reviewed, adjusted and approved by Council.

These two different types of committees are not mutually exclusive. In the Las Vegas example, that city utilizes both a Financial Advisory Committee looking at revenue assumptions in upcoming budgets and an Audit Oversight Committee to review audits of past expenditures.

Each function—prospective and retrospective—provides a different benefit. As such, the committees have different needs in terms of member expertise, meeting schedule, and structure.

In deciding whether to modify the existing Audit Committee and/or create a committee to assist in the budget process, the Council may want to consider how the specific objectives of each type of committee meet the needs and resources of the City.

As the staff was researching information for this report, a very informative article, printed in Western City, a monthly magazine provided by The League of California Cities, was located and is attached for reference. The article states, “These committees, composed of community members, aim to increase city government transparency and build accountability”. It goes on to warn of the potential pitfalls, highlighting that clear direction is needed to avoid duplicating staff work, creating competing priorities and workload for staff, and/or challenging the governance and authority of the Council. The article recommends establishing clear steps to avoid the pitfalls, these step include; articulating clear direction from Council on the mission and role of the committee; setting clear roles and responsibilities, adopt a standing committee resolution or code of conduct for the committee, provide training and/or orientation to all involved, appoint a city council member and/or staff liaison; clearly delineate the level of committee staff support to be provided; consider sunset provisions; and regularly review the purpose and mission of the committee.

Packet Pg. 421
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee Page 3 Audit Committee
The City currently has an Audit Committee, which is comprised of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor.

As a standing committee of the Council, the Audit Committee is a Brown Act body with publicly noticed meetings. Staff did not locate any original organizing documents, but based on the review of agendas, the Audit Committee meets regularly to consider the results of the City’s annual external audit. The Audit Committee then advances the results of the annual external audit for consideration by the Council. The committee also meets and considers modifications to audit contracts, including extensions, and the selection of new auditors. Additionally, the City currently tasks the Audit Committee with reviewing all internal audits and setting the priorities for future internal audits.

Staff is recommending a resolution formalizing the structure and scope of the existing Audit Committee. Council Policy 425 provides the delegation of the authority for Internal Audits to Finance and reporting of the results of the internal audits to the Audit Committee. There is no clear definition or documented role of the Audit Committee besides this mention in Council Policy 425 and this includes the external audits aspect. This is most likely the result of functions being delegated to the Committee at different times, but it would be helpful to maintain a single document outlining all of the Committee’s functions and structure. Moreover, as a Brown Act Body, the Audit Committee is required to have a regular meeting schedule, and including that schedule in the resolution would be helpful for organizational purposes. Prior to bringing forward a resolution, staff will need to confirm whether the Council chooses to retain the current Audit Committee structure or wishes to revisit that issue as part of the larger fiscal oversight discussion.

Financial Oversight Committee
The City does not currently have a committee that provides forward-looking recommendations on revenue and expense projections to assist in the City’s budget process. If the Council is interested in creating a committee similar to what is used in other cities, staff can draw from those examples to bring a proposed resolution for the Council to consider. These would likely involve some customization for the City. Once again, using the City of Las Vegas as our example, representatives from specific industries that drive revenue in their jurisdiction are appointed to serve. A similar committee in the City may or may not look to the same industries as a driver of local revenue and economic activity.

Similar issues would be meeting schedule and appointment process. Each city typically uses its own appointment structure. In the City of Redding, this involves appointments made by the Mayor, subject to approval of the full Council, with terms staggered in order to allow for a diversity of appointments. Staff would prepare any draft resolution with this same model unless otherwise directed by the Council. Additionally, the Council will need to decide on a regular meeting schedule for the committee, but that may be best decided after the Council determines how it may change the budget workshop process.

Other Options
The options presented represent the models that staff has identified from other jurisdictions, but other structures are possible. If these options do not meet the Council’s needs, it may be prudent to start by identifying the policy goals that the Council wants to address so that structure or alternative proposals can be derived from there.

Packet Pg. 422
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee Page 4 Environmental Review
This item is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
^City Council Policy 425 - Internal Audit Function
^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine Packet Pg. 423

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION 2006-40 425 3-21-06 1 of 1

BACKGROUND
City management is responsible to the City Council for its performance. While management is primarily responsible for the City’s performance and its internal controls, the City Council is ultimately responsible for ensuring that management fulfills that responsibility. The quality of the City’s control environment can be improved by establishing an internal audit function. The internal audit function would help in monitoring the effectiveness of the City’ s policies and procedures. Implementing an internal audit function should also enhance the City’s effectiveness in accomplishing its goals and objectives. The internal audit function can be provided by Finance Division personnel. The Finance Division has qualified staff who have supervised, planned and/ or performed audits in the past. To assist the City Council in its responsibility to oversee management’ s performance, particularly relating to internal controls, the Finance Division will not only report to the City Manager, but also directly to the Audit Committee regarding its internal control procedures.

PURPOSE
It is City Council’ s desire to establish an internal audit function. The internal audit function would help in monitoring the effectiveness of the City’ s policies and procedures. Qualified personnel exist within the Finance Division to perform some of the internal audit function. To improve the City’s internal control structure the Finance Division is assigned the responsibility of performing the internal audit function as workload permits.

To help enhance the Division’ s independence, the Division will report formally to the City Manager and Audit Committee at least on an annual basis.

POLICY
It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Redding that the Finance Division will be responsible for the internal audit function of the City. Due to the limited staff time available to work on internal audit items, priorities will be set by the Finance Division as to the work to be performed. However, at least annually the Finance Division will report their internal audit priorities tothe Audit Committee and the Audit Committee may approve or change those priorities. Annually, the Finance Division will also report the results of their internal audit work to the City Manager and the Audit Committee.

Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 425 - Internal Audit Function (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) October 22, 2018 Features by Melissa Kuehne
Finance Advisory Committees: Tips and
Traps
Melissa Kuehne is communications and development manager for the Institute for Local Government; she can be reached at [email protected].

Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) In today’s environment of the 24-hour news cycle, social media and “fake news,” cities throughout California are working hard to engage their communities and strengthen trust in local government. Residents increasingly question decisions made at all levels of government — particularly those related to use of taxpayer dollars and financial decisions. To help address such concerns, many cities are turning to finance advisory committees.

These committees, composed of community members, aim to increase city government transparency and build accountability. Including the community in the decisionmaking process beyond participating in elections and city council meetings helps people better understand the types of decisions made at the local level, the trade-offs to consider and how city councils arrive at final decisions.
“Involving residents in meaningful, inclusive and responsive ways benefits the city and the community alike,” says Tony Dahlerbruch, city manager of Palos Verdes Estates. “Advisory committees can serve as a conduit between the city and community, which leads to increased transparency and trust.”
Avoiding Unintended Consequences: Issues to Consider
Finance advisory committees can yield many benefits, but they can also generate unintended consequences if not carefully designed and managed. Without clear direction and strict oversight, a city runs the risk of the finance advisory committee duplicating staff work and challenging the governance and authority of the city council. Such committees are most effective when they are a conduit for residents serving in an advisory capacity to the city council to share opinions and offer recommendations — and least effective when they duplicate the efforts of the city’s finance director and Finance Department.

Committees that duplicate efforts can also create competing priorities for staff. When the committee’s purpose and tasks are not clearly articulated, cities run the risk of committee members attempting to direct staff and drive projects. This potentially puts staff in an awkward situation where the committee issues directions that conflict with council-adopted goals and priorities and/or the directions of executive staff.

Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) The amount of staff time needed to manage the committee is another consideration. It’s likely that staff will need to respond to questions and requests from committee members and provide support for additional public hearings and meetings. Depending on the number of meetings and the committee’s needs, this can significantly strain already stretched city staff.

Another problem can arise if the committee is given the authority to develop or recommend a budget because the committee may reach a conclusion that differs — perhaps radically — from the direction that the council deems to be the best option. This creates conflict between the council and the committee and, by extension, the residents of the community. In such a situation, if the council opts not to follow the committee’s direction, it can undermine the chances of achieving the primary goal of increasing trust between the city and community.

Best Practices
To avoid these potential pitfalls, cities can take the
following steps.

Articulate a clear mandate from the city council about
the committee’s mission and role in the
decisionmaking process. This can avoid “mission creep”
and support the efforts of staff and the council to keep the committee — as a whole and its individual members —
focused and on task.

Set clear roles and responsibilities. Providing clarity to committee members on their charge and the decisionmaking process is critically important.

Committees are not in place to direct staff, duplicate staff efforts or make final policy or operational decisions. Their purpose is to serve in an advisory capacity to the city council, which in turn makes final policy decisions. If a committee crosses the line into the operations, activities and recommendations that are the responsibility of the council or staff, the council risks unintentionally abdicating its role, losing control and creating unnecessary controversy.

Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) Adopt a standing committee resolution or code of conduct for the committee.

This helps formalize the committee’s role and responsibilities and provides a mechanism for staff and the city council to keep the committee on track.

Provide training and/or orientation for new committee members. Standing committees are subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Thus, it may be wise to provide training to committee members on the laws governing open meetings, AB 1234 ethics education and/or conflicts of interest. City officials may also want to consider conducting an orientation for new committee members that covers:

The role and responsibilities of the committee;
Applicable city ordinances and ethics laws;
Adopted codes of conduct; and
Staff or council contacts.

It may also be helpful to consider any unique qualifications and subject-matter knowledge or expertise that may be needed on the committee and to seek those skills in the recruitment process. When recruiting members for a finance advisory committee, the city may require applicants to have finance, investment or banking experience; however, such private-sector experience differs significantly from public-sector finance, and committee members will still require training and oversight.
“The City of Los Altos Hills provides training and orientation for all new committee members and has adopted a code of conduct for all appointed commissioners and committee members,” says Carl Cahill, city manager for Los Altos Hills. “This allows us to manage expectations and work more collaboratively with our advisory committees.” Appoint a city council and/or staff liaison. This individual can report back to the city council and/or executive staff, answer questions for the committee and help keep the committee focused on its mission.

Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) Clearly delineate the level of committee staff support to be provided. Make certain that adequate staff support will be provided for the advisory committee and be specific about the limits of such support.

Have a sunset provision or regularly review the committee’s purpose and mission. If the committee has a narrow scope of duties, it may be appropriate to limit how long the committee exists. Periodically reviewing the purpose or mission of a standing committee is also advisable. Has its charge been accomplished? Is its purpose still relevant or does it need to be re-examined?
Taking the Long View
“In general, it’s good to have more community participation in local government through advisory committees and other means,” says Rod Gould, retired city manager of Santa Monica. “However, problems arise when the committees aren’t provided the necessary training, clarity of direction, support and oversight to complete their mission or goals.” Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee) When carefully executed and properly functioning, finance advisory committees can build trust in local government, help a city understand the community’s values and priorities and foster leadership development.

Cities also employ other means of engaging residents on fiscal matters. The Institute for Local Government offers a number of resources to help local governments successfully involve their communities in budgeting and finance issues and plan productive public meetings. See “Tools to Engage Your Community in the Budgeting Process” on page 9 for tips and approaches to that engagement.

Photo Credit: Erhui1979.

Related Content
✕
November 1, 2017
News from the
Institute for the Local
Government
Madeline Henry
Engaging Your
Community in the
Budgeting Process
Public involvement in city budgeting
increases financial transparency and
promotes greater trust.

October 1, 2017
Executive Director's
Message Carolyn
Coleman
Stopping the
Runaway Pension
Train
Increasing pension costs could push
cities already in financial distress
closer to the brink of bankruptcy.

Sep
201
by
Da
W
Outsmart D
Why Local
Governmen
Get Involve
A look at how comm
for an earthquake a
resilience.

Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: ^Finance Advisory Committees_ Tips and Traps - Western City Magazine (9.1(e)--Establishment of Finance Advisory Committee)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following:
(1) Introduce Ordinance amending Redding Municipal Code Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic), Chapter 11.12 (Speed Limits) by amending Section 11.12.010 (Established on Certain Streets) for first reading by title only and waive the full reading; (2) Direct the City Attorney to prepare a summary ordinance, if needed, and authorize the City Clerk to publish the summary ordinance according to law; and (3) Find that the action is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact with amending the Speed Limits Ordinance. Sufficient funds for the staff time to implement the requisite Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) changes are included in the adopted Public Works’ Streets Division’s Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to adopt the attached ordinance and retain the zones as they were last adopted. The City of Redding Police Department (RPD) would be restricted on where it could use radar or other electronic devices, and citations would be vulnerable to overturning by the courts based on speed trap laws in accordance with Sections 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2025
ITEM NO. 9.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(c)--Consider Ordinance amending Redding Municipal Code Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2.

Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 431
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2 Page 2 Background/Analysis
In November and December of 2024, Council reviewed and approved amendments to Volumes 1 and 3 of the City of Redding’s (City) E&TS. Volume 4 had previously been amended in August of 2022. Staff has currently prepared an updated E&TS Volume 2 for review. Updating the E&TS and adopting the amended volumes provides a lifespan of at least seven years for the various speed limits throughout the City. Redding Municipal Code (RMC) Section 11.12.010 sets forth the various streets, broken into four volumes, where speed limits other than prima facie apply within the City. The Council may amend this chapter to establish reasonable and prudent speed limits.

The process for preparing an E&TS, and the constraints on setting speed limits, is specified in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CaMUTCD). This process has resulted in staff's recommendation to revise Volume 2 of Chapter 11.12 of the RMC to set intermediate speed limits that reflect the results of the recently prepared E&TS.

Section 22349 of the CVC establishes maximum speed limits of 65 miles per hour (mph) on highways and 55 mph on two-lane undivided highways. CVC Section 22352 establishes prima facie speed limits of 15 mph for rail crossings, sight-obstructed intersections, and alleys, and 25 mph for business and residential districts and school zones. Additionally, CVC Section 22358.8 enables the retaining of a current speed limit, if after completing an E&TS, the local authority finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe.

CVC Sections 22357 and 22358 also allow local authorities to declare intermediate speed limits between 55 mph and 25 mph on the basis of an E&TS. Speed zones that are justified by an E&TS allow RPD to enforce the limits using radar or laser technology in accordance with CVC Section 40802. This section also requires that the E&TS be reevaluated every seven years if local law enforcement officers are trained in the use of radar or laser equipment. This may be extended to a total of 14 years if, in addition to the radar training requirements, there are no significant changes in the roadway or traffic conditions.

The methodology for an E&TS is provided in CVC Section 627 and CaMUTCD Section 2B.13.

These sections require local authorities to consider the following when setting speed limits:
• Prevailing speeds;
• Accident records;
• Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to a driver; • Residential density; and
• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

The CaMUTCD and CVC Section 21400(b) require that speed limits normally be set at the nearest five mph increment of the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic travels, or slower. This is the speed traveled by a majority of drivers and it is considered to be reasonable and prudent. The posted speed limit may be reduced by five mph with justification based on a limited set of conditions by a registered, professional traffic or civil engineer. A larger reduction would constitute a speed trap. Consequently, some adjustments in speed limits are being recommended with this update. The CaMUTCD goes on to state that speed limits cannot be set arbitrarily low because they:

Packet Pg. 432
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2 Page 3 • Create violators of the majority of drivers;
• Require constant enforcement;
• Would not command the respect of the public; and
• Generally, result in an increase in collision rates.

The attached E&TS provides a list of the current and proposed speed limits for each of the street segments included in Volume 2 to be updated with this recommended action. In summary, staff is recommending decreasing the speed limit on two street segments, no speed limit increases, adjusting the boundaries of street segments along three routes, and removing Howard Drive from the E&TS. In the previous E&TS study, Howard Drive was determined to qualify for a 25-mph residential district prima facie speed limit based on Section 22352(b) of the California Vehicle Code; thus, eliminating the need for Howard Drive to be included in E&TS Volume 2 moving forward.

Of the various adjustments made to segment boundaries, only the modifications made on Placer Street and Hartnell Avenue are of significance, the modification shown to West Street is minor in nature. The recommendations on Placer are to make minor modifications to the segment limits to better reflect the continuity of lane configurations and overall roadway conditions on the route, as well as eliminate the segment from Chestnut Street to Court Street based on the CaMUTCD guidance to avoid short speed zones of less than half a mile long. The recommended modification to the Hartnell Avenue segment boundary provides traffic safety improvements by adjusting the speed limit beyond the vertical curve where corner sight distance is more limited.

The ordinance has also been updated to show both longstanding street segments on Airpark Drive, which is not a deviation from the previous E&TS, rather a clarification item as the existing E&TS Volume 2 ordinance simply has these three segments consolidated into one line.

The remaining street segments, including posted speed limits and boundaries, will remain unchanged. The attached draft ordinance for the Council’s consideration incorporates the recommendations as described above.

Environmental Review
Staff has determined that the action is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, per Section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The action has been reviewed and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

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

Attachments
^Clean Ordinance
^Strikeout Ordinance
NOE Traffic Ordinance Update
^2025 E&TS Update Summary - Volume 2
Packet Pg. 433

DRAFT NEW ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING AMENDING TITLE 11
(VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) CHAPTER 11.12 (SPEED LIMITS) BY
AMENDING SECTION 11.12.010 TO UPDATE VOLUME II, ALL

RELATING TO SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic), Chapter 11.12 (Speed Limits), Section

11.12.010 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

11.12.010 - Established on certain streets.

A. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 22357 and 22358 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California, the City has had engineering and traffic surveys prepared by the Public Works Department in cooperation with the Police Department, which surveys include the streets or portions of streets set forth in this Chapter.

B. Considering the recommendations resulting from the surveys, the City Council has determined that the following speed limits shall be established to provide an orderly and safe movement of traffic, and that such speed limits are reasonable in each respective street location:

SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS STREETS

VOLUME II

1. AIRPARK DRIVE
Placer St. to Sonoma St. 35 MPH
Sonoma St. to Rosaline Dr. 35 MPH

2. BLAZINGWOOD DRIVE
Howard Dr. to Dawnridge Dr. 25 MPH
Dawnridge Dr. to Canyon Creek Rd. 35 MPH

3. CANYON ROAD
ACID Canal to City Limits 45 MPH

4. CEDARS ROAD
Westside Rd. to Branstetter Ln. 35 MPH
Branstetter Ln. to El Reno Ln. 35 MPH

5. COURT STREET
Sheridan St. to Schley Ave. 30 MPH
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: ^Clean Ordinance (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2) Schley Ave. to Placer St. 35 MPH
Placer St. to Eureka Way 25 MPH
Eureka Way to Riverside Dr. 30 MPH

6. EAST BONNYVIEW ROAD
S. Bonnyview Rd. to N. Bonnyview Rd. 40 MPH
N. Bonnyview Rd. to Radio Ln. 30 MPH

7. EASTSIDE ROAD
Girvan Rd. to S. Bonnyview Rd. 40 MPH
S. Bonnyview Rd. to Breslauer Way 45 MPH
Breslauer Way to Wyndham Ln. 40 MPH

8. GIRVAN ROAD
Eastside Rd. to Platinum Way 35 MPH
Platinum Way to Creekside St. 25 MPH

9. HARTNELL AVENUE
E. Cypress Ave. to Bechelli Ln. 35 MPH
Bechelli Ln. to Churn Creek Rd. 35 MPH
Churn Creek Rd. to Victor Ave. 40 MPH
Victor Ave. to Goodwater Ave. 40 MPH
Goodwater Ave. to Airport Rd. 45 MPH

10. PLACER STREET
City Limits to Buenaventura Blvd. 45 MPH
Buenaventura Blvd. to Airpark Dr. 35 MPH
Airpark Dr. to Court St. 35 MPH

11. RADIO LANE
Eastside Rd. to E. Bonnyview Rd. 35 MPH

12. RAILROAD AVENUE
Buenaventura Blvd. to Schley Ave. 40 MPH
Schley Ave. to South St. 35 MPH

13. VICTOR AVENUE
Churn Creek Rd. to Galaxy Way 40 MPH
Galaxy Way to Hartnell Ave. 40 MPH
Hartnell Ave. to Mistletoe Ln. 40 MPH
Mistletoe Ln. to Old Alturas Rd. 40 MPH

14. WEST STREET
Eureka Way to 8
th St. 30 MPH
Section 2. The passage of this ordinance is not a “project” according to the definition in the California Environmental Quality Act, and therefore is not subject to the provisions requiring environmental review.

Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision will remain in effect to the extent permitted by law.

Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: ^Clean Ordinance (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2) Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption thereof and cause its publication according to law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read by the City Council of the City of Redding at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of December, 2025; and was duly read and adopted at a regular meeting on the _____ day of __________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________
JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ____________________________________ SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney DATE ATTESTED: _______________, 2025
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: ^Clean Ordinance (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2)

STRIKEOUT ORDINANCE
OLD LANGUAGE: STRIKEOUT
NEW LANGUAGE: UNDERLINE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDDING AMENDING TITLE 11
(VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) CHAPTER 11.12 (SPEED LIMITS) BY
AMENDING SECTION 11.12.010 TO UPDATE VOLUME II, ALL

RELATING TO SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS

11.12.010 - Established on certain streets.

SPEED LIMITS ON VARIOUS STREETS

VOLUME II

1. AIRPARK DRIVE
Placer St. to Sonoma St. Rosaline Dr. 35 MPH
Sonoma St. to Rosaline Dr. 35 MPH

2. BLAZINGWOOD DRIVE
Howard Dr. to Dawnridge Dr. 25 MPH
Dawnridge Dr. to Canyon Creek Rd. 35 40 MPH

3. CANYON ROAD
ACID Canal to City Limits 45 MPH

4. CEDARS ROAD
Westside Rd. to Branstetter Ln. 35 MPH
Branstetter Ln. to El Reno Ln. 35 MPH

5. COURT STREET
Sheridan St. to Schley Ave. 30 MPH
Schley Ave. to Placer St. 35 MPH
Placer St. to Eureka Way 25 MPH
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: ^Strikeout Ordinance (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2) Eureka Way to Riverside Dr. 30 MPH

6. EAST BONNYVIEW ROAD
S. Bonnyview Rd. to N. Bonnyview Rd. 40 MPH
N. Bonnyview Rd. to Radio Ln. 30 MPH

7. EASTSIDE ROAD
Girvan Rd. to S. Bonnyview Rd. 40 45 MPH
S. Bonnyview Rd. to Breslauer Way 45 MPH
Breslauer Way to Wyndham Ln. 40 MPH

8. GIRVAN ROAD
Eastside Rd. to Platinum Way 35 MPH
Platinum Way to Creekside St. 25 MPH

9. HARTNELL AVENUE
E. Cypress Ave. to Bechelli Ln. 35 MPH
Bechelli Ln. to Churn Creek Rd. 35 MPH
Churn Creek Rd. to Victor Ave. 40 MPH
Victor Ave. to Goodwater Ave. Heritagetown Dr. 40 MPH
Goodwater Ave. Heritagetown Dr. to Airport Rd. 45 MPH

10. HOWARD DRIVE
Sunglow Dr. to El Reno Ln. 25 MPH

10. PLACER STREET
City Limits to Buenaventura Blvd. 45 MPH
Buenaventura Blvd. to Airpark Dr. Highland Ave. 35 MPH
Airpark Dr. Highland Ave. to Court St. Chestnut St. 35 MPH Chestnut St. to Court St. 35 MPH

11. RADIO LANE
Eastside Rd. to E. Bonnyview Rd. 35 MPH

12. RAILROAD AVENUE
Buenaventura Blvd. to Schley Ave. 40 MPH
Schley Ave. to South St. 35 MPH

13. VICTOR AVENUE
Churn Creek Rd. to Galaxy Way 40 MPH
Galaxy Way to Hartnell Ave. 40 MPH
Hartnell Ave. to Mistletoe Ln. 40 MPH
Mistletoe Ln. to Old Alturas Rd. 40 MPH

14. WEST STREET
Eureka Way to 8
th St. North End 30 MPH
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: ^Strikeout Ordinance (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2) Packet Pg. 439
Attachment: NOE Traffic Ordinance Update (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2) Road Segment Existing
Speed Limit
Critical
Speed
(85th%)
Nearest
5 mph
Increment
Proposed
Speed Limit Change Conditions justifying 5 mph reduction

1. Airpark Drive
Placer St to Sonoma St 35 38 40 35 Traffic and Pedestrian safety Sonoma St to Rosaline Ave 35 37 35 35

2. Blazingwood Drive
Howard Dr to Dawnridge Dr 25 30 30 25 Cyclist safety
Dawnridge Dr to Canyon Creek Rd 40 40 40 35 -5 Safety of Pedestrians

3. Canyon Road
City Limits to ACID Canal 45 52 50 45 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety

4. Cedars Road
Westside Rd to Branstetter Ln 35 42 40 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Branstetter Ln to El Reno Ln 35 38 40 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety

5. Court Street
Sheridan St to Schley Ave 30 35 35 30 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Schley Ave to Placer St 35 40 40 35 Traffic, Pedestrian, and Cyclist safety Placer St to Eureka Way 25 32 30 25 Traffic safety
Eureka Way to Riverside Dr 30 33 35 30 Cyclist safety

6. East Bonnyview Road
S. Bonnyview Rd. to N. Bonnyview Rd 40 46 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety N. Bonnyview Rd to Radio Lane 30 32 30 30

7. Eastside Road
Girvan Rd to S. Bonnyview Rd. 45 46 45 40 -5 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety S. Bonnyview Rd to Breslauer Way 45 49 50 45 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Breslauer Way to Wyndham L n 40 43 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety

8. Girvan Road
Eastside Rd to Platinum Way 35 44 45 35 Retain existing speed limit of 35 mph per CVC 22358.8 (a) Platinum Wy to Creekside St 25 32 30 25 Pedestrian safety

9. Hartnell Avenue
East Cypress Ave to Bechelli Ln 35 42 40 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Bechelli Ln to Churn Creek Rd 35 39 40 35 Traffic, Pedestrian, and Cyclist safety Churn Creek Rd to Victor Ave 40 44 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Victor Ave to Goodwater Ave 40 44 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Goodwater Ave to Airport Rd. 45 47 45 45

10. Placer Street
City Limits to Buenaventura Blvd 45 50 50 45 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Buenaventura Blvd to Airpark Dr 35 39 40 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Airpark Dr to Court St 35 36 35 35

11. Radio Lane
Eastside Rd to E. Bonnyview Rd 35 42 40 35 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety

12. Railroad Avenue
Buenaventura Blvd to Schley Ave 40 44 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Schley Ave to South St 35 37 35 35

13. Victor Avenue
Churn Creek Rd to Galaxy Way 40 43 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Galaxy Way to Hartnell Ave 40 41 40 40
Hartnell Ave to Mistletoe Ln 40 43 45 40 Pedestrian and Cyclist safety Mistletoe Ln to Old Alturas Rd 40 42 40 40

14. West Street
Eureka Way to Eighth St 30 36 35 30 Cyclist safety and Residential Density Underscore - Denotes change from existing speed limit.
2025 Update Summary
Engineering & Traffic Surveys
Volume 2
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: ^2025 E&TS Update Summary - Volume 2 (9.11(c)--Ordinance amending RMC Chapter 11.12, Speed Limits Vol. 2)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following:
(1) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 18th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2025-049 increasing appropriations by $36,000 in Fiscal Year 2025-26 and $72,000 in Fiscal Year 2026-27 due to benefit plan changes related to Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) copayments which violate the Memoranda of Understanding with the City of Redding’s (City) bargaining units; and
(2) Authorize City staff to reimburse beneficiaries the difference paid by the City’s Health Insurance plan and the copayment amount outlined in the corresponding Memoranda of Understanding for medically necessary GLP-1 medications.

Fiscal Impact
The Personnel Department is requesting a budget resolution to utilize cash reserves from the Group Insurance Fund to pay for potential expenses related to Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) expenses. As proposed, adopting the resolution would increase appropriations for health insurance expenses by $36,000 in FY 25-26 and $72,000 in FY 26-27 to cover the reimbursement of copayments in excess of the bargained amount for beneficiaries. Currently, staff is estimating that approximately 115 beneficiaries use a GLP-1 for a reason other than diabetes management. The increase in appropriations estimates that approximately half of these will qualify for reimbursement ($150 maximum coinsurance - $50 original copayment = $100 monthly reimbursement x 60 beneficiaries = $6000/monthly).

If these costs are still occurring during the next budget development process they will be allocated to the respective departments based on utilization. There is no direct General Fund impact.

MEETING DATE: December 2, 2025
ITEM NO. 9.15(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.15(a)--Consider budget Resolution increasing appropriations for City of Redding employee benefits insurance.

Kari Kibler, Personnel
Director
Packet Pg. 441
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.15(a)--Budget Amendment for GLP-1s Page 2
Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could decline to take the recommended actions; this is not recommended as the City of Redding (City) is bound by the provisions in the various Memoranda of Understanding. Imposition of benefit changes may result in Unfair Practice Charges being filed by various bargaining units with the Public Employment Relations Board.

Background/Analysis
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM) (formerly California State Association of Counties – Excess Insurance Authority CSAC-EIA) is one of the largest Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) in California. The City has participated in the PRISMHealth program since 2007, which pools claims risk and costs in order to promote cost control and consistency relative to health care costs. PRISMHealth operates under a governance model in which strategic decisions are made by the PRISMHealth Committee for the entire pool.

Effective January 1, 2026, the PRISMHealth Committee implemented copayment changes specific to GLP-1 medications:
• Beneficiaries taking a GLP-1 for diabetes management will continue to pay a $50 copayment for GLP-1 medications. (This is no change to the current coverage.) • Beneficiaries taking a GLP-1 for weight loss will only be eligible for coverage if the following conditions exist:
▪ The beneficiary has a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher; or ▪ The beneficiary has a BMI between 35 and 39 with at least one related comorbidity.
o Those persons will pay a 30% coinsurance up to a maximum of $150. • If a beneficiary does not meet the conditions above, the GLP-1 medication is not considered medically necessary and not covered by the City’s insurance.

The Memoranda of Understanding with the City’s bargaining units specify that specialty medications will be subject to a copayment of $50.

The Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA) requires local government agencies in California to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of recognized employee organizations (e.g. labor unions) over changes to “wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment.” As the City is in locked contracts with the different bargaining units, the City is unable to negotiate the benefit change (increased copayment specific to GLP-1s) until the contracts expire and the City re-opens negotiations with each bargaining unit.

As this change cannot be unilaterally imposed without violating the MMBA, staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to reimburse beneficiaries the difference between the copayment amount paid by insurance and the amount listed in the appropriate Memorandum of Understanding for medically necessary GLP-1 medications until such time as the contract language can be renegotiated with each bargaining unit.

Packet Pg. 442
Report to Redding City Council November 26, 2025
Re: 9.15(a)--Budget Amendment for GLP-1s Page 3
Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 18th AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2025-049
APPROPRIATING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 $36,000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2027 $72,000 FOR GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 (GLP-1) COPAYMENTS.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2025-049 be and is hereby amended as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended 2026

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
399 3999 Group Health Claims Expense $36,000 $0
Fiscal Year Ended 2027

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
399 3999 Group Health Claims Expense $72,000 $0
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended 2026

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Beginning Balance
399-3999-2910000 Fund Balance 36,000
Increase Expenditures
399-3999-5057501 Group Health Claims Expense $ 36,000
Total $ 36,000 $ 36,000
Fiscal Year Ended 2027

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Beginning Balance
399-3999-2910000 Fund Balance 72,000
Increase Expenditures
399-3999-5057501 Group Health Claims Expense $ 72,000
Total $ 72,000 $ 72,000
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: ^Budget Resolution (9.15(a)--Budget Amendment for GLP-1s) THAT the purpose is to appropriate for fiscal year 2026 $36,000 and for fiscal year 2027 $72,000 for glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) copayments.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the _____ day of December, 2025 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

JACK MUNNS, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: ^Budget Resolution (9.15(a)--Budget Amendment for GLP-1s)

Redding City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Redding City Council
December 2, 2025