Agenda packet — Shasta Lake City Council, November 1, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 1, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

City Council Chambers
4488 Red Bluff Street
Shasta Lake. CA 96019
Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Mayor: Rick Kern
Vice Mayor: Greg Watkins
Council Members: Pamelyn Morgan, Janice Powell

OTHER WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING
• Watch a livestream of the meeting online or view the recording any time after the meeting concludes at the following: cityofshastalake.org/meetings
• Submit public comment by mail or email addressed to City Clerk, City of Shasta Lake, PO Box 777, Shasta Lake, CA 96019 or [email protected]. Mailed and emailed comments must be received one day prior to the meeting to be included.
6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:

Call to order (please place electronic devices on silent) Statement for the record of Council Members present or absent Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS:

Proclamation for Native American Month, November 2022.

PRESENTATIONS:

The Brown Act prohibits the Council from taking action on any item not placed on the Agenda in most cases. The Brown Act requires any non-confidential documents or writings distributed to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before a regular meeting to be made available to members of the public at the same time they are distributed.

Should supplemental materials to be evaluated in the decision-making process be made available to the members of the legislative body at the meeting, seven (7) copies must be provided to the City Clerk who will distribute them.

Councilmembers are encouraged to contact the City Manager prior to the meeting with questions or concerns regarding any item on the Agenda so that their questions and concerns can be adequately addressed at the meeting.

Agenda packets are available for public review at City Hall, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, CA during normal business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. weekdays, excluding holidays.

In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call (530) 275-7407. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting is requested to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 1, 2022
COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment. Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. Speaker forms are available from the City Clerk, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, on the City’s website, or at the back of the meeting hall. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven copies.

CONSENT AGENDA:

The items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine business and will be voted on together by one motion unless a Council Member requests a specific item to be removed and discussed separately.

1. Resolution accepting the Quarterly Cash and Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2022.

2. Resolution establishing the Appropriation Limitation for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 at $6,565,261.00.

3. Resolution accepting the Lift Station 5 Manhole Modifications Project as complete and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion.

4. Resolution approving supplemental budget authorization of $25,000.00 to fund the Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 Project and to declare RTA Construction, Inc. the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder, award a construction contract in the amount of $158,700.00 to RTA Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 Project, and approve an expenditure for construction not to exceed $175,000.00.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

5. Public Hearing, discussion, and possible action(s) regarding the General Plan Update. Following the close of the public hearing, Staff recommends the City Council adopt:

1. A Resolution (Attachment A to the report) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for City of Shasta Lake General Plan 2040 including the exhibits to the resolution and: (a) Making findings of fact related to potentially significant and significant and CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA November 1, 2022
unavoidable environmental impacts, as analyzed in the FEIR; and (b) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the FEIR.

2. A Resolution (Attachment B to the report) adopting the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update and related Land Use Diagram, including the recommended text and land use diagram amendments as reflected in the exhibits to the Resolution, with any modifications or other amendments as may be made by the Council.

3. An Ordinance (Attachment C to the report) adopting the 2040 General Plan Update, providing direction on the codification of the Plan, establishment of interim zoning provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, severability, and an effective date for the General Plan Update.

REGULAR AGENDA:

6. Discussion and possible action on a Resolution calling for the holding of a Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, for the purpose of electing a Council Member to serve the remainder of a term ending December 2024 under the laws of the State of California related to General Law Cities.

7. STAFF COMMENTS:

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:

This is the time set aside for Council Members, who may so desire, to give brief comments or reports concerning City matters. The City Council may not enter into discussion on matters reported.

Statements made by individual Council Members should not be interpreted as a statement of the City Council. The City Council only takes action by majority vote. • Brief reports by members of the Council regarding correspondence, events and/or meetings attended, and upcoming meetings/events.
• Suggestions/motions for future agenda items.
• In compliance with Assembly Bill 1234, Council will report on attendance at conferences/meetings/events where expenses are reimbursed by the City.

ADJOURNMENT:

Meetings are broadcast on the Wednesday following the meeting at 6:00 PM and the following Friday at 2:00 PM on Charter Channel 181. Videos of meetings are also available through the City website: www.cityofshastalake.org

PROCLAMATION
A CITY OF SHASTA LAKE MAYOR’S PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 2022 AS NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
WHEREAS, National Native American Heritage Month honors the many contributions and accomplishments of American Indians and Alaska Natives; and WHEREAS, today Native Americans continue to enrich our communities and strengthen our country; and
WHEREAS, while we celebrate the rich traditions of the original people of what is now the United States, we cannot forget the long and unfortunate chapters of violence, discrimination; and deprivation they endured; and
WHEREAS, while we cannot ignore the events of the past, we can work together to forge a brighter future with preservation of Native American history, traditions, and culture; and WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake continues to be an advocate for both recognized and nonrecognized Native Americans by not only expressing our support, but collaborating with our local tribes on various projects and programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake has partnered with the Redding Rancheria/Win-River Hotel Corporation to apply and receive funding for infrastructure improvements to benefit the tribe’s economic development project at Shasta Dam Blvd and Cascade Blvd; and WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake has partnered with our local tribe, the Wintu Tribe of Northern California, for funding opportunities including various programs and the construction of the Wintu Cultural Center/Museum which we proudly support as an opportunity to share the history of our local tribe and the native people of our area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake stands in support of the Wintu Tribe of Northern California receiving their rightly due Federal recognition as a Recognized Native American Tribe.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Shasta Lake proclaims November 2022 as National Native American Heritage Month in the City of Shasta Lake.

Dated this 1st day of November, 2022.

RICK KERN, Mayor
Report and Recommendations 1
Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council Meeting

TO: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
FROM: Wendy Howard, Finance Director
DATE: October 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Cash & Investment Report for September 30, 2022 FILE NO: F-200-150-015

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff submits for approval the attached Cash & Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Effective January 1, 1996, California enacted into law Senate Bills 564 and 866, which outline standards and requirements regarding investment activities for local public agencies. Sound investment policies, conservative management of public funds, and quarterly reporting requirements to the governing body were the main focus of this legislation.

The law requires that the chief fiscal officer submit an investment report to the City Council (governing body) each quarter that consists of the following information:
 issuers (bank or institution)
 type of investment or description
 dollar amount
 interest rate
 market valuation
 percent of each investment within the overall portfolio  date of maturity
The source of the valuation of each investment is required to be reported to the City Council.

Additionally, a statement indicating the agency’s ability, or lack thereof, to meet the next six (6) months cash flow requirements is required.

Each of the criteria listed above has been addressed in the attached analysis of the cash and investments that the City held on September 30, 2022. The source of market valuations has been quoted from documents received from the bank or institution that is the issuer of each of the investments. If staff did not receive this information from the bank or institution, market value has been listed as equal to the carrying amount. Additionally, we have indicated whether funds are “restricted” for a particular purpose. Restricted funds are usually the amount of funds required to service the last debt service payment on a loan or funds for special projects (water improvement project and housing rehabilitation).

On an overall basis, the City of Shasta Lake should be able to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

None
ATTACHMENTS:
• City of Shasta Lake Cash & Investment Report
• Resolution for the approval of the September 30, 2022 Cash & Investment Report • Cash and Investment Notes
DISTRIBUTION:

City of Shasta Lake City Council
City of Shasta Lake Files
Market Date of
Bank or Institution Description Amount Interest Rate Valuation % of Portfolio Maturity Cornerstone Community Bank Checking Account $1,917,254 n/a $1,917,254 3.6287% n/a City of Shasta Lake Petty Cash $2,100 n/a $2,100 0.0040% n/a Wells Fargo Investments Investments $32,500,426 variable $32,598,839 61.6989% Varies State of California
LAIF-City $18,281,730 1.35% $18,046,360 34.1558% n/a
Shasta County Trustee
(Restricted) LAIF-County* $274,321 1.35% $270,789 0.5125% n/a Grand Total $52,975,831 $52,835,343 100%
CalPERS CERBT ** Retiree Health Benefit Trust $7,869,312 variable $7,869,312 n/a n/a CalPERS CEPPT ** Retiree Pension Benefit Trust $85,213 variable $85,213 n/a n/a *Restricted = Debt Service Reserve Requirements
** This is a portfolio investment and not a bank deposit. Each employer owns a percentage of the portfolio, and does not have direct ownership of the securities in the portfolio.

It is expected that the City of Shasta Lake will be able to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months. ____________________________________ 30-Sep-2022
Wendy Howard Date
Finance Director
City of Shasta Lake
Analysis of Cash and Investments
September 30, 2022
RESOLUTION CC-2022-XX

A CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE QUARTERLY CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 WHEREAS, the Chief Fiscal Officer is required under Senate Bills 564 and 866 to provide a quarterly investment report to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the report includes the issuers, type of investment or description, dollar amount, interest rate, market valuation, the percent of each investment within the overall portfolio, the date of maturity, and
WHEREAS, the source of the valuation of each investment has been quoted from documents received from the bank or institution that is the issuer of each of the investments and when not supplied the amount has been listed as equal to the carrying value, and WHEREAS, on an overall basis, the City of Shasta Lake will be able to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shasta Lake City Council accepts the Quarterly Cash and Investment Report for the Period ending September 30, 2022 for review.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
Cash Accounts Held at September 30, 2022
CCB Checking Account - The City’s checking account at Cornerstone Community Bank is primarily used to manage the day-to-day operations of the City.

Wells Fargo Advisors CD’s (Managed by Chandler) - The Wells Fargo account holds a mix of investments, which comply with California regulations. The yield on these investments varies.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)-City - LAIF is where the City keeps its idle cash for all funds. It’s essentially the City’s cash reserves and is necessary for liquidity. This type of account allows the City to deposit and withdraw funds a maximum of 15 transactions per month without fees or penalties.

LAIF-County - The County LAIF account is essentially a reserve fund for the debt service for the USDA sewer loan. This $5.6 million loan was used to finance the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The final payment on the bond is due September 2034.

Report and Recommendations 2 Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council Meeting

TO: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
FROM: Wendy Howard, Finance Director
DATE: October 12, 2022
SUBJECT: City of Shasta Lake Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation Limit FILE NO: F-200-005-120

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Shasta Lake’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation Limit.

BACKGROUND:

In November 1979, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative. The proposition created Article XIIIB of the State Constitution placing limits on the amount of revenue which can be spent by all entities of government. Under Proposition 4, each city is required to calculate the appropriation limits based on 1978-79 revenues. As a result of the proposition, the League of California Cities issued Uniform Guidelines in 1980 to assist cities in interpreting and implementing Proposition 4. Attached are the resolution and the calculations that were used to arrive at the City of Shasta Lake’s Appropriation Limitation. The City is required to approve and adopt this limit each year. Staff has calculated the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation Limitation to be $6,565,261.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

There are no fiscal impacts during the appropriation limit period referenced above.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution for establishing the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriation Limit • Appropriation calculation
• Public notice
• Department of Finance letter
DISTRIBUTION:
• City of Shasta Lake City Council, City Files
RESOLUTION CC 2022-XX

A SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATION LIMITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AT $6,565,261.

WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution was enacted into law by passage of Proposition 4, commonly called the Gann Initiative; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has calculated the appropriation limitation in accordance with Uniform Guidelines for Implementation of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution as developed by the League of California Cities; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the information and calculation used to develop the appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, and made a part of.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shasta Lake City Council has established the appropriation limitation for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at Six Million Five Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-one Dollars ($6,565,261).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
Exhibit A
City of Shasta Lake
Calculation of Appropriation Limitation
FY 2022-23
Appropriation Limit FY 2021-2022 $6,153,009
Change in Population 0.9921
X Change in U. S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) 1.0755
= Change Factor 1.0670
Change Factor 1.0670
X Appropriation Limit FY 2021-2022 6,153,009
= Appropriation Limit FY 2022-2023 $6,565,261
Public Notice
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake will establish the Appropriation Limit for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the Council Meeting of November 1, 2022 at 6:00 PM at 4488 Red Bluff Street, Shasta Lake, California.

Under the Uniform Guidelines developed by the League of California Cities, the City has calculated the limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at $6,565,261. The calculation used to establish the limit may be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office at 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, California, 96019. : http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

May 2022
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2022, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2022-23. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2022-23 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.

Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website
Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2022.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

KEELY MARTIN BOSLER
Director
By:

ERIKA LI
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment

May 2022
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2022-23 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2022-23 7.55
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2022-23 appropriation limit.
2022-23:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 7.55 percent
Population Change = -0.30 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 7.55 + 100 = 1.0755 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.30 + 100 = 0.997
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2022-23: 1.0755 x 0.997 = 1.0723

5.38 2.72
-0.31
-0.95

0.26 -0.71
-1.42

0.15 -1.31
-1.45
-1.67
-1.69
-1.66
-1.59
76,855
20,542
121,269
71,930
12,617
228,872
161,744
87,388
47,157
430,100
11,138
78,924
89,926
69,301
151,853
76,377
21,648
124,563
71,706
12,497
229,476
160,591
86,149
47,229
424,464
10,977
77,609
88,404
68,150
149,445
77,784
21,648
124,563
72,932
12,497
229,476
160,591
86,149
47,229
424,464
10,977
77,609
88,404
68,150
149,506
County Total -0.62 1,659,616 1,649,285 1,651,979
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Alpine
Unincorporated 0.42 1,195 1,200 1,200
County Total 0.42 1,195 1,200 1,200
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Amador
Amador -1.04 193 191 191
Ione 4.15 4,863 5,065 8,888
Jackson 0.00 5,028 5,028 5,028
Plymouth -1.04 1,056 1,045 1,045
Sutter Creek -0.76 2,640 2,620 2,620
Unincorporated -0.49 22,602 22,491 22,525
County Total 0.16 36,382 36,440 40,297
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Butte
Biggs -1.77 1,974 1,939 1,939
Chico 0.52 102,359 102,892 102,892
Gridley -2.81 7,413 7,205 7,205
Oroville -6.24 20,119 18,863 18,863
Paradise 25.55 6,137 7,705 7,705
Unincorporated -8.21 68,638 63,004 63,004
County Total -2.44 206,640 201,608 201,608
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Calaveras
Angels City -0.49 3,641 3,623 3,623
Unincorporated -0.39 41,525 41,363 41,426
County Total -0.40 45,166 44,986 45,049
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Colusa
Colusa 0.42 6,356 6,383 6,383
Williams 0.60 5,530 5,563 5,563
Unincorporated -0.26 9,887 9,861 9,861
County Total 0.16 21,773 21,807 21,807
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Del Norte
Crescent City -0.88 4,111 4,075 6,060
Unincorporated -0.50 21,219 21,112 21,158
County Total -0.56 25,330 25,187 27,218
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
El Dorado
Placerville 0.09 10,636 10,646 10,646
South Lake Tahoe -1.44 21,508 21,199 21,199
Unincorporated -0.19 158,845 158,538 158,620
County Total -0.32 190,989 190,383 190,465
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

1.64 -0.69

3.37 1.44

0.17 -0.10

3.51 -0.22
-0.47
-0.59
-0.38

0.21 -0.96
-0.95
-0.73
-0.80
121,667
13,453
8,164
6,863
542,416
6,176
16,074
12,533
12,499
9,553
14,553
24,929
26,558
3,674
24,702
160,081
123,665
13,360
8,439
6,962
543,346
6,170
16,639
12,506
12,440
9,497
14,497
24,982
26,304
3,639
24,522
158,799
123,665
17,277
8,439
6,962
543,660
6,170
16,639
12,506
12,440
9,497
14,497
24,982
26,304
3,639
24,522
160,074
County Total 0.19 1,003,895 1,005,767 1,011,273
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Glenn
Orland -0.63 8,319 8,267 8,267
Willows 1.29 6,345 6,427 6,427
Unincorporated -0.48 14,124 14,056 14,056
County Total -0.13 28,788 28,750 28,750
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

2.42 -1.20
-1.35
-0.65
-0.73
-1.12
-1.33
-0.29
17,633
1,165
27,134
1,376
12,523
3,380
300
71,953
18,059
1,151
26,768
1,367
12,432
3,342
296
71,743
18,059
1,151
26,768
1,367
12,432
3,342
296
71,753
County Total -0.23 135,464 135,158 135,168
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

1.14 -0.50
-1.55
-0.81

1.11 3.65
-0.64
-1.22
26,648
38,906
3,539
44,871
5,504
20,755
2,017
30,917
26,952
38,711
3,484
44,508
5,565
21,513
2,004
30,541
26,952
38,711
6,367
44,508
5,565
21,513
2,004
33,709
County Total 0.07 173,157 173,278 179,329
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Inyo
Bishop 0.03 3,868 3,869 3,869
Unincorporated -0.05 15,058 15,050 15,109
County Total -0.04 18,926 18,919 18,978
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.67 -1.00

0.56 -0.97
-0.94

0.21 2.69

0.44 -0.47
-0.06
-0.86
19,833
406,129
12,927
43,906
1,028
14,034
27,363
19,950
6,980
9,346
22,723
305,655
19,639
408,865
12,798
44,152
1,018
13,902
27,421
20,486
7,011
9,302
22,710
303,036
19,639
408,865
14,952
51,258
1,018
13,902
28,061
20,486
7,011
12,375
26,689
305,557
County Total 0.05 889,874 890,340 909,813
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Kings
Avenal -0.75 9,417 9,346 13,186
Corcoran -0.74 13,574 13,474 22,047
Hanford -0.42 58,544 58,299 58,299
Lemoore -0.61 27,225 27,058 27,058
Unincorporated -1.02 25,218 24,961 31,433
County Total -0.63 133,978 133,138 152,023
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Lake
Clearlake -0.97 16,671 16,509 16,509
Lakeport 2.06 4,898 4,999 4,999
Unincorporated -0.35 46,016 45,857 45,899
County Total -0.33 67,585 67,365 67,407
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Lassen
Susanville 1.06 9,677 9,780 13,212
Unincorporated 0.14 15,550 15,571 17,062
County Total 0.49 25,227 25,351 30,274
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Los Angeles
Agoura Hills -1.02 19,975 19,771 19,771
Alhambra -0.42 82,182 81,834 81,834
Arcadia -0.54 56,240 55,934 55,934
Artesia -0.74 16,261 16,140 16,226
Avalon -0.99 3,428 3,394 3,394
Azusa -0.97 50,191 49,704 49,704
Baldwin Park -0.84 71,455 70,855 70,855
Bell -1.00 33,962 33,624 33,624
Bellflower -0.96 78,107 77,359 77,359
Bell Gardens -1.03 39,265 38,861 38,861
Beverly Hills -0.92 32,565 32,265 32,265
Bradbury -1.09 914 904 904
Burbank -0.77 106,268 105,451 105,451
Calabasas -0.97 23,151 22,926 22,926
Carson -0.59 92,912 92,362 92,362
Cerritos -1.08 49,163 48,634 48,634
Claremont -0.78 37,364 37,072 37,072
Commerce -1.08 12,273 12,140 12,140
Compton -1.08 95,261 94,233 94,233
Covina -0.95 50,933 50,449 50,449
Cudahy -0.92 22,526 22,318 22,318
Culver City -0.48 40,330 40,135 40,135
Diamond Bar -1.06 54,782 54,204 54,204
Downey -0.83 113,525 112,584 112,584
Duarte -1.00 21,473 21,258 21,258
El Monte -0.94 108,728 107,706 107,706
El Segundo -0.93 17,244 17,084 17,084
Gardena -0.72 60,382 59,947 59,947
Glendale -0.77 194,618 193,116 193,116
Glendora -0.95 52,316 51,821 51,821
Hawaiian Gardens -0.99 13,755 13,619 13,619
Hawthorne -1.00 87,722 86,841 86,841
Hermosa Beach -1.09 19,382 19,171 19,171
Hidden Hills 0.12 1,736 1,738 1,738
Huntington Park -1.06 54,519 53,942 53,942
Industry -0.45 440 438 438
Inglewood -0.62 107,143 106,481 106,481
Irwindale 0.54 1,482 1,490 1,490
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
La Canada Flintridge -1.03 20,291 20,081 20,081
La Habra Heights -1.08 5,655 5,594 5,594
Lakewood -0.99 81,681 80,876 80,876
La Mirada -0.77 49,074 48,696 48,696
Lancaster -0.62 172,298 171,234 175,164
La Puente -0.10 37,626 37,587 37,587
La Verne -0.93 32,608 32,304 32,304
Lawndale -1.07 31,638 31,301 31,301
Lomita -1.05 20,851 20,633 20,633
Long Beach 0.20 459,711 460,636 460,682
Los Angeles -0.88 3,851,093 3,817,053 3,819,538
Lynwood -0.80 67,260 66,723 66,723
Malibu -0.49 10,739 10,686 10,686
Manhattan Beach -1.29 35,357 34,902 34,902
Maywood -0.87 25,033 24,814 24,814
Monrovia -0.65 37,809 37,563 37,563
Montebello -0.90 62,180 61,622 61,622
Monterey Park -1.00 60,814 60,207 60,207
Norwalk -0.56 101,517 100,946 101,645
Palmdale -0.89 168,895 167,398 167,398
Palos Verdes Estates -1.04 13,116 12,980 12,980
Paramount -1.00 53,009 52,477 52,477
Pasadena -0.52 139,029 138,310 138,310
Pico Rivera -0.62 61,827 61,442 61,442
Pomona 0.60 148,879 149,766 149,766
Rancho Palos Verdes -0.98 41,861 41,451 41,468
Redondo Beach -1.10 69,742 68,972 68,972
Rolling Hills -1.12 1,703 1,684 1,684
Rolling Hills Estates 0.07 8,283 8,289 8,289
Rosemead -0.61 50,823 50,511 50,511
San Dimas -0.86 34,651 34,352 34,352
San Fernando 0.00 23,520 23,519 23,519
San Gabriel -1.03 39,250 38,845 38,845
San Marino -0.62 12,334 12,257 12,257
Santa Clarita 0.33 228,084 228,835 228,835
Santa Fe Springs 1.05 18,523 18,718 18,763
Santa Monica -0.89 93,242 92,408 92,408
Sierra Madre -0.86 10,959 10,865 10,865
Signal Hill -0.90 11,702 11,597 11,597
South El Monte 0.70 19,532 19,668 19,668
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.51 -1.00
-0.64
-0.99
-0.95
92,783
26,849
36,497
145,876
210
93,259
26,580
36,262
144,433
208
93,259
26,580
36,262
144,433
208
Walnut
West Covina
West Hollywood
Westlake Village
Whittier
Unincorporated
-0.88
-0.96
-0.43
-0.96

0.05 -0.67
28,344
109,290
35,553
8,121
87,886
1,016,054
28,094
108,243
35,399
8,043
87,931
1,009,225
28,094
108,243
35,399
8,043
87,931
1,009,857
County Total -0.71 9,923,635 9,853,284 9,861,224
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Madera
Chowchilla -0.51 13,680 13,610 18,851
Madera -0.69 66,299 65,843 65,843
Unincorporated 1.43 71,674 72,702 72,702
County Total 0.33 151,653 152,155 157,396
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 County
City
Percent Change
2021-2022
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-21 1-1-22
Total
Population
1-1-2022
Marin
Belvedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Unincorporated
-1.09
-1.17
-1.04
-1.28
-1.09
-1.06
-1.24
-0.99
-1.01
-1.22
-1.20
-1.21
2,103
10,147
7,496
12,963
14,002
52,720
2,330
12,772
61,179
7,159
9,065
64,601
2,080
10,028
7,418
12,797
13,850
52,162
2,301
12,645
60,560
7,072
8,956
63,817
2,080
10,028
7,418
12,797
13,850
52,441
2,301
12,645
60,560
7,072
8,956
66,987
County Total -1.11 256,537 253,686 257,135
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Mariposa
Unincorporated -0.20 17,018 16,984 17,045
County Total -0.20 17,018 16,984 17,045
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Mendocino
Fort Bragg 1.26 7,064 7,153 7,153
Point Arena -0.67 446 443 443
Ukiah -0.91 16,228 16,080 16,080
Willits -0.79 4,959 4,920 4,920
Unincorporated -0.97 61,958 61,355 61,403
County Total -0.78 90,655 89,951 89,999
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.49 1.02

0.97 1.91
32,019
5,835
6,098
14,340
46,168
88,200
88,173
31,652
5,715
5,981
14,410
46,639
89,058
89,856
31,652
5,715
5,981
14,410
46,639
89,058
90,883
County Total 0.88 280,833 283,311 284,338
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Modoc
Alturas 1.00 2,699 2,726 2,726
Unincorporated 0.96 5,907 5,964 5,964
County Total 0.98 8,606 8,690 8,690
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Mono
Mammoth Lakes 0.56 7,324 7,365 7,365
Unincorporated 0.67 5,843 5,882 6,014
County Total 0.61 13,167 13,247 13,379
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

4.97 -1.08

0.87 -1.69
-1.21
-1.14
-1.59

2.64 -1.15
-1.32
3,095
1,558
8,492
18,705
13,476
21,271
24,283
14,942
161,777
378
26,891
19,226
105,741
3,041
1,539
8,340
19,634
13,331
21,457
23,872
14,761
159,932
372
27,600
19,004
104,341
3,041
1,539
8,340
19,634
13,331
21,457
28,082
14,761
159,932
372
32,068
26,308
104,851
County Total -0.62 419,835 417,224 433,716
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Napa
American Canyon 0.43 21,566 21,658 21,658
Calistoga -1.59 5,283 5,199 5,199
Napa -0.98 78,246 77,480 77,480
St Helena -1.52 5,521 5,437 5,437
Yountville -1.68 2,259 2,221 2,829
Unincorporated -1.60 22,884 22,517 23,576
County Total -0.92 135,759 134,512 136,179
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Nevada
Grass Valley -0.39 13,670 13,617 13,617
Nevada City -1.54 3,386 3,334 3,334
Truckee 0.38 17,035 17,100 17,100
Unincorporated -0.94 67,784 67,144 67,191
County Total -0.67 101,875 101,195 101,242
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Orange
Aliso Viejo -0.88 51,233 50,782 50,782
Anaheim -0.97 344,587 341,228 341,245
Brea -0.48 47,097 46,872 46,872
Buena Park -0.64 83,968 83,430 83,430
Costa Mesa -0.70 112,183 111,394 111,394
Cypress -0.44 50,029 49,810 49,810
Dana Point -0.33 33,053 32,943 32,943
Fountain Valley -0.88 57,068 56,564 56,564
Fullerton 0.53 141,974 142,732 142,732
Garden Grove -0.44 171,284 170,526 170,526
Huntington Beach -0.77 197,616 196,100 196,100
Irvine 2.99 301,254 310,250 310,250
Laguna Beach -0.68 22,862 22,706 22,706
Laguna Hills -0.86 31,017 30,750 30,750
Laguna Niguel -0.88 64,885 64,316 64,316
Laguna Woods -0.88 17,670 17,514 17,514
La Habra -0.84 62,317 61,792 61,792
Lake Forest 0.43 86,406 86,775 86,775
La Palma -0.85 15,463 15,332 15,332
Los Alamitos -0.18 11,895 11,873 11,873
Mission Viejo -0.70 93,171 92,515 92,515
Newport Beach -0.87 84,459 83,727 83,727
Orange 0.10 137,534 137,676 137,676
Placentia -0.62 51,522 51,204 51,204
Rancho Santa Margarita -0.89 47,703 47,279 47,279
San Clemente -0.78 63,877 63,380 63,380
San Juan Capistrano -0.31 34,907 34,798 34,798
Santa Ana -0.93 311,340 308,459 308,459
Seal Beach -0.80 24,418 24,222 24,846
Stanton 2.59 38,284 39,275 39,275
Tustin -0.78 80,157 79,535 79,535
Villa Park -0.89 5,834 5,782 5,782
Westminster -0.46 90,812 90,393 90,393
Yorba Linda -0.78 67,760 67,233 67,233
Unincorporated -0.65 133,302 132,437 132,437
County Total -0.23 3,168,941 3,161,604 3,162,245
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

1.29 1.65
-1.38

0.03 1.51
-1.16
13,795
2,016
50,422
6,833
71,644
148,794
114,013
13,608
2,042
51,252
6,739
71,663
151,034
112,687
13,608
2,042
51,252
6,739
71,663
151,034
112,687
County Total 0.37 407,517 409,025 409,025
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Plumas
Portola 0.74 2,027 2,042 2,042
Unincorporated -3.69 17,547 16,900 16,900
County Total -3.23 19,574 18,942 18,942
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Riverside
Banning 0.81 30,629 30,877 30,877
Beaumont 0.69 54,313 54,690 54,690
Blythe -0.74 12,845 12,750 17,505
Calimesa 3.37 10,544 10,899 10,899
Canyon Lake -0.82 11,147 11,056 11,056
Cathedral City -0.10 51,859 51,809 51,840
Coachella -0.05 42,178 42,158 42,158
Corona -0.08 156,901 156,778 156,778
Desert Hot Springs 0.07 32,546 32,569 32,569
Eastvale -0.73 70,444 69,929 69,929
Hemet -0.20 89,823 89,646 89,646
Indian Wells -0.19 4,771 4,762 4,762
Indio 0.31 88,862 89,137 89,137
Jurupa Valley -0.03 105,415 105,384 105,384
Lake Elsinore 1.02 70,746 71,470 71,615
La Quinta -0.23 37,949 37,860 37,860
Menifee 2.90 103,617 106,627 106,627
Moreno Valley -0.09 209,603 209,407 209,407
Murrieta -0.44 111,671 111,183 111,183
Norco -1.24 22,499 22,219 24,909
Palm Desert -0.17 50,976 50,889 50,889
Palm Springs -0.39 44,570 44,397 44,397
Perris -0.55 79,327 78,890 78,890
Rancho Mirage 0.92 16,650 16,804 16,804
Riverside 1.62 312,730 317,788 317,847
San Jacinto 0.17 54,503 54,593 54,593
Temecula -0.42 110,394 109,925 109,925
Wildomar -0.80 36,928 36,632 36,632
Unincorporated 0.87 393,021 396,441 396,717
County Total 0.42 2,417,461 2,427,569 2,435,525
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.11 1.33
-0.57
-1.27

1.03 -0.05
-0.86
87,245
176,769
78,714
25,383
790
79,536
518,322
609,504
86,367
176,972
79,758
25,239
780
80,359
518,037
604,272
86,367
176,972
84,592
25,239
780
80,359
518,037
604,272
County Total -0.28 1,576,263 1,571,784 1,576,618
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
San Benito
Hollister 1.51 41,919 42,554 42,554
San Juan Bautista -1.27 2,120 2,093 2,093
Unincorporated 0.49 20,730 20,832 20,832
County Total 1.10 64,769 65,479 65,479
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
San Bernardino
Adelanto -0.58 36,569 36,357 36,357
Apple Valley -0.70 76,160 75,628 75,628
Barstow -0.56 24,996 24,855 25,202
Big Bear Lake -0.26 5,054 5,041 5,041
Chino 1.75 86,713 88,228 91,998
Chino Hills -0.60 78,437 77,964 77,964
Colton -0.44 53,853 53,617 53,617
Fontana 1.39 209,889 212,809 212,809
Grand Terrace -0.68 13,131 13,042 13,042
Hesperia 0.10 100,225 100,324 100,324
Highland -0.65 56,915 56,546 56,546
Loma Linda 0.18 25,269 25,314 25,349
Montclair -0.54 38,052 37,846 37,846
Needles -0.79 4,915 4,876 4,876
Ontario 1.60 176,689 179,516 179,516
Rancho Cucamonga 0.00 174,484 174,476 174,476
Redlands -0.48 72,933 72,585 72,585
Rialto -0.09 104,050 103,954 103,954
San Bernardino -0.55 220,768 219,544 220,840
Twentynine Palms -0.77 15,895 15,772 27,685
Upland 0.31 78,891 79,139 79,139
Victorville 0.82 131,522 132,597 136,561
Yucaipa -0.61 54,830 54,494 54,494
Yucca Valley -0.15 21,846 21,813 21,813
Unincorporated -0.46 292,872 291,532 300,003
County Total 0.14 2,154,958 2,157,869 2,187,665
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

6.63 0.64

2.19 -1.13
-0.39

0.98 -0.14
7,439
29,384
66,145
84,995
16,162
321,525
93,624
158,998
7,362
31,331
66,570
86,859
15,979
320,268
94,538
158,781
7,362
31,331
66,570
86,859
15,979
322,489
94,538
159,170
County Total 0.44 778,272 781,688 784,298
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.24 1.94
18,533
29,860
31,659
12,879
10,638
8,095
47,541
116,466
18,294
29,434
31,176
12,707
10,466
7,981
47,653
118,720
18,294
30,480
31,176
12,707
10,466
7,981
47,653
121,964
County Total 0.28 275,671 276,431 280,721
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

4.47 5,185
13,267
33,315
8,622
41,966
88,479
110,969
5,858
130,861
5,055
12,963
32,591
8,544
41,079
86,571
109,910
5,709
136,711
5,055
12,963
32,591
8,544
43,845
86,591
109,910
5,709
139,956
County Total 0.14 438,522 439,133 445,164
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.69 0.87
-0.38

0.89 0.07
-1.48

0.78 -0.34

0.58 -0.62
43,086
59,884
59,396
31,651
8,414
33,193
80,287
3,458
46,626
83,128
67,407
991,144
129,122
30,772
155,326
83,985
42,833
59,610
59,269
31,526
8,400
33,062
80,839
3,488
46,451
83,864
67,454
976,482
130,127
30,667
156,234
83,464
42,833
59,610
59,269
31,526
8,400
33,062
80,839
3,488
46,451
83,864
67,473
976,482
130,127
30,667
156,234
84,458
County Total -0.69 1,906,879 1,893,770 1,894,783
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Santa Cruz
Capitola -3.14 10,112 9,794 9,794
Santa Cruz 11.25 57,594 64,075 64,075
Scotts Valley -2.89 12,407 12,049 12,049
Watsonville -2.83 52,147 50,669 50,669
Unincorporated -3.21 134,251 129,935 129,977
County Total 0.00 266,511 266,522 266,564
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Shasta
Anderson -0.83 11,181 11,088 11,088
Redding -0.98 93,742 92,826 92,963
Shasta Lake -0.79 10,318 10,237 10,237
Unincorporated -0.60 66,596 66,196 66,243
County Total -0.82 181,837 180,347 180,531
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Sierra
Loyalton 0.00 737 737 737
Unincorporated 0.16 2,488 2,492 2,492
County Total 0.12 3,225 3,229 3,229
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.07 -0.06
-0.03
859
1,705
684
694
1,232
3,247
899
2,826
7,777
24,003
847
1,681
674
684
1,215
3,204
886
2,828
7,772
23,996
847
1,681
674
684
1,215
3,204
886
2,828
7,772
24,039
County Total -0.32 43,926 43,787 43,830
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 County
City
Percent Change
2021-2022
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-21 1-1-22
Total
Population
1-1-2022
Solano
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Unincorporated
-1.26
-0.06
-0.15
-0.36
-1.26
-0.20
-0.98
-1.07
26,995
19,094
115,571
9,961
29,266
96,104
124,410
17,780
26,656
19,083
115,396
9,925
28,896
95,911
123,190
17,590
26,656
19,083
119,897
9,925
28,896
101,257
123,190
18,337
County Total -0.58 439,181 436,647 447,241
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.22 -0.73

0.54 9,029
7,512
11,174
59,756
44,287
177,396
7,520
10,755
26,134
130,546
8,905
7,397
11,030
58,945
43,998
175,775
7,489
10,779
25,942
131,253
8,905
7,397
11,030
58,945
43,998
175,775
7,489
10,779
25,942
132,144
County Total -0.54 484,109 481,513 482,404
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.00 -0.40
-0.67
-0.17

2.23 -0.61
-0.28
-0.81
-0.90
48,762
7,495
218,745
12,326
23,110
23,839
24,735
71,734
8,944
112,047
48,386
7,495
217,880
12,244
23,071
24,370
24,583
71,531
8,872
111,034
48,386
7,495
217,880
12,244
23,071
24,370
24,583
71,531
8,872
111,034
County Total -0.41 551,737 549,466 549,466
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Sutter
Live Oak 2.21 9,191 9,394 9,394
Yuba City 0.07 69,614 69,663 69,663
Unincorporated -0.07 20,103 20,088 20,088
County Total 0.24 98,908 99,145 99,145
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Tehama
Corning -0.70 8,157 8,100 8,100
Red Bluff -0.63 14,698 14,605 14,605
Tehama -0.70 427 424 424
Unincorporated -0.37 41,975 41,819 41,923
County Total -0.47 65,257 64,948 65,052
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Trinity
Unincorporated -0.19 16,012 15,981 16,023
County Total -0.19 16,012 15,981 16,023
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

1.03 -0.47
-0.67
-0.46
-0.25

0.34 0.57

1.80 -0.09
24,872
10,305
10,308
12,624
62,314
69,229
141,279
7,513
135,342
25,127
10,257
10,239
12,566
62,156
69,462
142,091
7,648
135,224
25,127
10,257
10,239
12,566
62,345
69,462
142,091
7,648
135,279
County Total 0.21 473,786 474,770 475,014
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Tuolumne
Sonora 0.45 5,121 5,144 5,144
Unincorporated 0.84 47,539 47,937 50,147
County Total 0.80 52,660 53,081 55,291
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.00 -1.45

0.86 -1.18
-1.11

0.66 70,739
16,681
35,821
7,523
200,480
19,662
109,763
30,629
126,478
125,995
91,444
70,171
16,469
35,399
7,466
200,050
19,662
108,174
30,892
124,985
124,592
92,049
70,171
16,469
35,399
7,466
200,050
21,599
108,231
30,892
124,985
124,592
93,798
County Total -0.64 835,215 829,909 833,652
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Yolo
Davis -2.73 66,687 64,869 64,869
West Sacramento -1.75 53,776 52,837 52,837
Winters 0.31 7,399 7,422 7,422
Woodland -1.41 60,999 60,137 60,137
Unincorporated 26.52 28,376 35,900 35,900
County Total 1.81 217,237 221,165 221,165
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Population Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Yuba
Marysville -1.38 13,003 12,824 12,824
Wheatland -1.19 3,708 3,664 3,664
Unincorporated 0.80 63,065 63,567 65,787
County Total 0.35 79,776 80,055 82,275
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.00 0.42
0 1,195
0 1,200
Amador
Incorporated
County Total

1.23 0.16
13,780
36,382
13,949
36,440
Butte
Incorporated
County Total

0.44 -2.44
138,002
206,640
138,604
201,608
Calaveras
Incorporated
County Total
-0.49
-0.40
3,641
45,166
3,623
44,986
Colusa
Incorporated
County Total

0.50 0.16
11,886
21,773
11,946
21,807
Contra Costa
Incorporated
County Total
-0.38
-0.41
983,397
1,161,240
979,614
1,156,471
Del Norte
Incorporated
County Total
-0.88
-0.56
4,111
25,330
4,075
25,187
El Dorado
Incorporated
County Total
-0.93
-0.32
32,144
190,989
31,845
190,383
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.37 0.19
843,814
1,003,895
846,968
1,005,767
Glenn
Incorporated
County Total

0.20 -0.13
14,664
28,788
14,694
28,750
Humboldt
Incorporated
County Total
-0.15
-0.23
63,511
135,464
63,415
135,158
Imperial
Incorporated
County Total

0.35 0.07
142,240
173,157
142,737
173,278
Inyo
Incorporated
County Total

0.03 -0.04
3,868
18,926
3,869
18,919
Kern
Incorporated
County Total

0.53 0.05
584,219
889,874
587,304
890,340
Kings
Incorporated
County Total
-0.54
-0.63
108,760
133,978
108,177
133,138
Lake
Incorporated
County Total
-0.28
-0.33
21,569
67,585
21,508
67,365
Lassen
Incorporated
County Total

1.06 0.49
9,677
25,227
9,780
25,351
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022
County Percent Change
2021-22
--- Population
1-1-21
Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-22
Los Angeles
Incorporated
County Total
-0.71
-0.71
8,907,581
9,923,635
8,844,059
9,853,284
Madera
Incorporated
County Total
-0.66

0.33 79,979
151,653
79,453
152,155
Marin
Incorporated
County Total
-1.08
-1.11
191,936
256,537
189,869
253,686
Mariposa
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 -0.20
0 17,018
0 16,984
Mendocino
Incorporated
County Total
-0.35
-0.78
28,697
90,655
28,596
89,951
Merced
Incorporated
County Total

0.41 0.88
192,660
280,833
193,455
283,311
Modoc
Incorporated
County Total

1.00 0.98
2,699
8,606
2,726
8,690
Mono
Incorporated
County Total

0.56 0.61
7,324
13,167
7,365
13,247
Monterey
Incorporated
County Total
-0.39
-0.62
314,094
419,835
312,883
417,224
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022
County Percent Change
2021-22
--- Population
1-1-21
Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-22
Napa
Incorporated
County Total
-0.78
-0.92
112,875
135,759
111,995
134,512
Nevada
Incorporated
County Total
-0.12
-0.67
34,091
101,875
34,051
101,195
Orange
Incorporated
County Total
-0.21
-0.23
3,035,639
3,168,941
3,029,167
3,161,604
Placer
Incorporated
County Total

0.97 0.37
293,504
407,517
296,338
409,025
Plumas
Incorporated
County Total

0.74 -3.23
2,027
19,574
2,042
18,942
Riverside
Incorporated
County Total

0.33 0.42
2,024,440
2,417,461
2,031,128
2,427,569
Sacramento
Incorporated
County Total

0.08 -0.28
966,759
1,576,263
967,512
1,571,784
San Benito
Incorporated
County Total

1.38 1.10
44,039
64,769
44,647
65,479
San Bernardino
Incorporated
County Total

0.23 0.14
1,862,086
2,154,958
1,866,337
2,157,869
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022
County Percent Change
2021-22
--- Population
1-1-21
Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-22
San Diego
Incorporated
County Total
-0.04
-0.08
2,745,332
3,226,278
2,744,337
3,223,583
San Francisco
Incorporated
County Total
-0.79
-0.79
849,259
849,259
842,529
842,529
San Joaquin
Incorporated
County Total

0.59 0.44
619,274
778,272
622,907
781,688
San Luis Obispo
Incorporated
County Total
-0.94

0.28 159,205
275,671
157,711
276,431
San Mateo
Incorporated
County Total
-0.91
-0.92
689,376
751,464
683,093
744,552
Santa Barbara
Incorporated
County Total
-1.70

0.14 307,661
438,522
302,422
439,133
Santa Clara
Incorporated
County Total
-0.69
-0.69
1,822,894
1,906,879
1,810,306
1,893,770
Santa Cruz
Incorporated
County Total

3.27 0.00
132,260
266,511
136,587
266,522
Shasta
Incorporated
County Total
-0.95
-0.82
115,241
181,837
114,151
180,347
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

0.00 0.12
737
3,225
737
3,229
Siskiyou
Incorporated
County Total
-0.66
-0.32
19,923
43,926
19,791
43,787
Solano
Incorporated
County Total
-0.56
-0.58
421,401
439,181
419,057
436,647
Sonoma
Incorporated
County Total
-0.93
-0.54
353,563
484,109
350,260
481,513
Stanislaus
Incorporated
County Total
-0.29
-0.41
439,690
551,737
438,432
549,466
Sutter
Incorporated
County Total

0.32 0.24
78,805
98,908
79,057
99,145
Tehama
Incorporated
County Total
-0.66
-0.47
23,282
65,257
23,129
64,948
Trinity
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 -0.19
0 16,012
0 15,981
Tulare
Incorporated
County Total

0.33 0.21
338,444
473,786
339,546
474,770
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- 2021-22 1-1-21 1-1-22
Tuolumne
Incorporated 0.45 5,121 5,144
County Total 0.80 52,660 53,081
Ventura
Incorporated -0.79 743,771 737,860
County Total -0.64 835,215 829,909
Yolo
Incorporated -1.90 188,861 185,265
County Total 1.81 217,237 221,165
Yuba
Incorporated -1.33 16,711 16,488
County Total 0.35 79,776 80,055
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Report and Recommendations 3 Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Will Bond, City Engineer/Public Works Director

DATE: November 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Authorization to file a Notice of Completion
Lift Station 5 Manhole Modifications Project – Bid No. 2022-11 FILE NO.: W-100-670-001
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests that the City Council consider accepting the project as complete and authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion for the Lift Station 5 Manhole Modifications Project (2022-11).

BACKGROUND:

On September 6, 2022, the City Council approved resolution CC2022-78 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with M5 Excavation in the amount of $42,759.64 and approve a total of $50,000 to allow for a contract contingency, for the purposes of performing the subject project.

Staff has determined that the work specified in the contract has been completed and is in substantial conformance with the Plans and Specifications. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council accept the Project and authorize the filing of a Notice of Completion at the Shasta County Recorder’s Office.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

Awarded construction contract: $42,759.64
Total project construction cost: $49,259.64
This project is fully funded through the FY 2022-2023 Wastewater Capital Improvements Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
DISTRIBUTION:

City Council
RESOLUTION CC 2022-xx
________________________________________________________________________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE LIFT STATION 5 MANHOLE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF

A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the City entered into a contract with M5 Excavation for the performance of the Lift Station 5 Manhole Modifications Project (2022-11); and
WHEREAS, M5 Excavation has completed the project to the satisfaction of City staff.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Shasta Lake City Council hereby accepts the Lift Station 5 Manhole Modifications Project (2022-11) as complete and authorizes staff to file a Notice of Completion with the Shasta County Recorder’s Office.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RICK KERN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
Report and Recommendations 4
Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Will Bond, City Engineer / Public Works Director

DATE: November 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Construction Contract Award
Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 – Bid No. 2022-01
FILE NO.: New
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests that the City Council consider approving a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $25,000.00 and awarding the Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 project to RTA Construction, Inc. of Redding, CA in the amount of $158,700.00 and approve a total of $175,000.00 to allow for a contract contingency.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns and operates a surface water treatment plant (WTP) at Fisherman’s Point, adjacent to Shasta Dam on property leased from the US Bureau of Reclamation. The WTP is rated to treat up to 6.7 million gallons per day (MGD), but treats an average of approximately 2.5 MGD. The treatment process consists of coarse screening followed by coagulation, flocculation, and filtration in three package Microfloc / Siemens clarifier-filters. Solids formed by the coagulant and flocculation processes, as well as the ambient turbidity of the raw water, are trapped and removed in both the clarifiers and the filters. From these processes, the solids are conveyed to a backwash holding basin. When the basin is full, the contents are pumped to Backwash Separation Tank No. 1 (constructed in 2017), where the liquids and solids are separated. From there, the liquids are returned to the backwash basin for recycling while the solids are thickened in a centrifuge before being taken to the landfill for disposal.

As the lake levels have continued to drop over the years, WTP staff has seen turbidity rise in the raw water influent, which results in a) more solids being retained in the filters and b) more frequent filling of the backwash holding basin. Because of this situation, additional storage volume is needed, and Backwash Separation Tank No. 1 is no longer sufficient. This project consists of constructing Backwash Separation Tank No. 2, which will double the filter effluent storage capacity of the WTP.

Six (6) bids were received on October 13, 2022. All six bids were deemed to be responsive. The bids ranged from a low responsive bid of $158,700.00 to a high responsive bid of $229,000.00.

The lowest responsive bid was about 4% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate of $165,000.00 and the highest responsive bid was about 39% higher than the Engineer’s Estimate. A Bid Summary is attached.

FISCAL IMPACTS:
$150,000.00 of this project is funded through currently budgeted water utility funds (510-340), and the supplemental budget appropriation of $25,000.00 will be funded from Water Utility capital project reserves.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution, Bid Summary
DISTRIBUTION:

City Council
PROJECT LOCTION MAP:

RESOLUTION CC 2022-xx
________________________________________________________________________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET AUTHORIZATION OF $25,000.00 TO FUND THE BACKWASH SEPARATION TANK NO. 2 PROJECT AND TO DECLARE RTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. THE

LOWEST RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,700.00 TO RTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BACKWASH SEPARATION TANK NO. 2 PROJECT, AND APPROVE TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR CONSTRUCTION NOT TO EXCEED $175,000.00
_____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, The City advertised for competitive bids to construct the above project starting on September 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, The City opened six competitive bids on October 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder was RTA Construction, Inc. of Redding, CA with a bid of $158,700.00; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the construction contract funds, contingency funds need to be allocated, creating a construction budget of $175,000.00; and
WHEREAS, The City had an approved budget amount of $150,000.00 for the project; and WHEREAS, a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $25,000.00 is required to provide funding to cover construction costs for the Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Shasta Lake City Council hereby:

1. Approves a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $25,000.00 from the Water Utility capital project reserves.

2. Declares RTA Construction, Inc. of Redding, CA the low responsive, responsible bidder, awards a construction contract in the amount of $158,700.00 to RTA Construction, Inc. of Redding, CA for the construction of the Backwash Separation Tank No. 2 project, and approves a total expenditure for construction not to exceed $175,000.00.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RICK KERN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
Engineer's Estimate
License No. 862067 License No. 1034643DIR No. 1000002349 DIR No. 1000055595 Item # Description Est. Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $12,115.00 $12,115.002 Trench Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $700.00 $700.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.003 Erosion and Sediment Control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.004 Piping and Appurtenances 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.005 Backwash Separation Tank 1 LS $143,000.00 $143,000.00 $134,000.00 $134,000.00 $123,000.00 $123,000.00 Total: $165,000.00 $158,700.00 $162,315.00
Subcontractor(s): Superior Tank Company SoCal Stormwater Runoff Solution Services Superior Tank CompanyMid Pacific Engineering
License No. 1052734 License No. 874552 License No. 867001 License No. 987763DIR No. 1000869069 DIR No. 1000040791 DIR No. 1000012516 DIR No. 1000013338 Item # Description Est. Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $12,561.00 $12,564.00 $17,120.00 $17,120.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 2 Trench Sheeting, Shoring and Bracing 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $550.00 $550.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.003 Erosion and Sediment Control 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,927.00 $1,927.00 $1,299.00 $1,299.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.004 Piping and Appurtenances 1 LS $70,989.25 $70,989.25 $15,808.00 $15,808.00 $12,784.00 $12,784.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.005 Backwash Separation Tank 1 LS $88,153.34 $88,153.34 $149,066.00 $149,066.00 $164,947.00 $164,947.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 Total: $165,142.59 $179,365.00 $196,700.00 $229,000.00
Subcontractor(s): S.B. Pyorre General Engineering Superior Tank Company Superior Tank Company Superior Tank Company Olson's ConcreteSuperior Tank Company
SnL Group, Inc.

Bid Opening Date: October 13, 2022
Bid No. 2022-01
Backwash Separation Tank No. 2
MDS Engineering &
Construction, Inc.

Bunker Engineering
Site Work Solutions
RTA Construction, Inc.

M5 Excavation
Report and Recommendations
Reviewed and Approved
City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council
November 1, 2022, Agenda
TO: Mayor and City Council,
FROM: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
Jim Hamilton, Annuitant Planner
DATE: November 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Hearing re: Consideration of Ordinance and Resolutions Certifying the 2040 General Plan Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) and Adopting the 2040 General Plan Update and related Land Use Diagram.

FILE NO.: 2020-2040 General Plan Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests that the City Council review the information in the record including the staff report and attachments, open the public hearing and consider any comments received, and if determined appropriate, accept the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council:
 Certify the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan Update as completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and  Adopt the 2040 General Plan Update, with those modifications as stipulated in the attached ordinance and resolution.

BACKGROUND:

California state law requires each city to adopt a general plan to direct “…the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning” (Gov. Code § 65300). Commenced in January 2015, the General Plan Update has been prepared based on the input received at multiple community workshops and outreach efforts, and many noticed public meetings. Input and direction on the Plan has been received from the General Plan Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and City Council, outside agencies, and the public.

Over the summer the required public review and comment period for the CEQA Environmental Impact Report, and the Draft 2040 General Plan was completed. During August and September, 5 Jessaca Lugo
the Planning Commission reviewed public comments and the contents of the EIR and the Plan at noticed public hearings.

On October 6, 2022, the Commission completed its review, and unanimously recommended Council certification of the EIR and adoption of the General Plan Update. The Commission recommendation included specific modifications and additions to the policy language in the Plan (Conservation and Public Safety Elements), as well as recommendations on modified land use designations for several properties.
2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The General Plan will apply citywide and addresses topics including land use, housing, transportation, public facilities and infrastructure, community character, public health and safety, preservation of open space, air quality, climate change and sustainability, noise, parks and recreation, economic vitality, and community governance. Once adopted, it will be the foundation upon which future land use decisions, including zoning of property, will be based.

Although, the General Plan Update includes new additions and modifications to the 1999 General Plan to reflect an expanded community vision, and new sections to achieve consistency with current state and local regulations, a large portion of the Update continues many of the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the current General Plan.

Adoption of the 2040 Update will culminate a multiple-year effort to update the 1999 Plan. This effort included the adoption of the 2020-2028 Housing Element and the 2022-2027 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – both substantial efforts involving public outreach during the development of the Plan and circulation of the environmental review processes. These processes further refined the content and policy direction reflected in the draft 2040 General Plan.

Taken together with certification of the FPEIR and adoption of the 2040 Plan Update, the culmination of these efforts will result in a modern, comprehensive, and legally adequate General Plan. Additional detail is contained in the attachments to this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) The City of Shasta Lake, as lead agency, has prepared a Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to provide information to the public, agencies and policy makers about the potential environmental effects that could occur with implementation of the 2040 General Plan Update. CEQA requires a process through which agencies and the public can evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the 2040 General Plan Update (the “project”), understand the potential scale of any environmental impacts to the degree feasible, and develop measures to reduce these impacts.

The 2040 General Plan Update was developed as a “self-mitigating” General Plan. Impacts identified in the FPEIR (which incorporates the Draft PEIR) will be mitigated through application of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; through the application of General Plan policies and programs; and through project level environmental review and mitigation that reflects the implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

In accordance with §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR describes three (3) reasonable alternatives to the project (2040 General Plan Update), which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and might avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. As documented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) of the DPEIR, three alternatives to the proposed 2040 General Plan were evaluated in accordance with §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Final PEIR - Findings and Determinations/Statement of Overriding Considerations.

In accordance with Public Resources Code (§21081) and State CEQA Guidelines (§15091), the Council must make one or more written findings addressing any potentially significant impacts associated with approval of the project. The Council must balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project - in this case adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update. If the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15093).

Section 5.0 of the Final PEIR “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,” identified that implementation of General Plan 2040 Update project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the following environmental areas: Air Quality; Biological Resources; Green House Gases, Climate Change, and Energy; Land Use and Planning; and Transportation.

Given this circumstance, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been prepared for General Plan 2040. As reflected in the FPEIR Section 6.0 “Project Alternatives”, most potentially significant impacts will occur regardless of the alternative chosen, including the “no project alternative” which assumes the 1999 Plan remains in place.

The “Statement of Overriding Considerations” (Exhibit B to “EIR Certification Resolution”) is a written statement explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of adopting the Plan Update outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and why the City is willing to accept such impacts. These reasons include:

1. An increased range of housing opportunities.

2. Increased economic opportunities.

3. An improved transportation and circulation system.

4. Improved preservation and protection of natural resources.

5. Addition of state required climate change goals, policies, and implementation actions.

6. The addition of community health and wellness goals, policies, and implementation actions.

The Statement acknowledges the significant and unavoidable impacts of the implementation of General Plan 2040 Update project, but provides findings supporting the position that General Plan 2040 conveys social, legal, economic, technological, and other benefits that outweigh such impacts. Once the General Plan Update EIR has been certified and the plan adopted, the EIR will then be used to inform and streamline CEQA review for future development projects in the City.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

General Fund and grant funds used to prepare Update.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Following the close of the public hearing, Staff recommends the City Council adopt:

1. A resolution (Attachment A to the report) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for City of Shasta Lake General Plan 2040 including the exhibits to the resolution and:
(a) Making findings of fact related to potentially significant and significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, as analyzed in the FEIR; and (b) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the FEIR.

2. A resolution (Attachment B to the report) adopting the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update and related Land Use Diagram, including the recommended text and land use diagram amendments as reflected in the exhibits to the Resolution, with any modifications or other amendments as may be made by the Council.

3. An ordinance (Attachment C to the report) adopting the 2040 General Plan Update, providing direction on the codification of the Plan, establishment of interim zoning provisions, correction of scrivener's errors, severability, and an effective date for the General Plan Update.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update
Attachment B: Resolution adopting the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update and related Land Use Diagram, including recommended text and land use mapping modifications.

Attachment C: An Ordinance adopting and implementing the 2040 General Plan Update, and setting forth necessary future administrative actions.
 Provided Under Separate Cover:

Attachment D: Background on General Plan actions including revised development projections, recommended modifications and comments received.

Attachment E: Background on CEQA action including Final Environmental Impact Report.

Attachment E: Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update.

Attachment F: City of Shasta Lake Draft 2040 General Plan Update and related errata.

Attachment G: Draft Environmental Impact Report
DISTRIBUTION:

City Council
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NUMBER CC-2022-##

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CERTIFING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2040 CITY OF SHASTA LAKE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT (SCH# 2021070574); AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake (City) has undertaken a comprehensive update to the 1999 Shasta Lake General Plan (the Project). The 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan and is intended to guide investment, development, environmental protection and conservation of resources in the City through 2040.

WHEREAS, the 2040 comprehensive update to the General Plan fully addresses topics including, but not limited to land use, housing, transportation, public facilities and infrastructure, community character and health, public health and safety, preservation of open space, air quality, climate change and sustainability, noise, parks and recreation, economic vitality, and community governance. Once adopted, the Plan will be the foundation upon which future land use decisions, including zoning of property, will be based.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.), the City, as Lead Agency, determined an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the Project.

WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake, as lead agency, prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) to provide the public and interested agencies with information about the potential environmental effects that could occur due to implementation of the 2040 General Plan.

WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update was developed as a “self-mitigating” General Plan, and impacts identified in the EIR will be mitigated through project level application of adopted Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, through the application of the General Plan policies, programs, and implementation measures, and project specific mitigation, or a combination thereof.

WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and distributed through the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15083, public and agency involvement in preparation of the PEIR commenced with the publication of the “Notice of Preparation” of the DPEIR on July 30, 2021.

WHEREAS, the DPEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000-§21189) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000-§15387) and was made available to the public and interested agencies for a 45-day public review period between July 25, 2022, and September 8, 2022.

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DPEIR was posted, and notices of Planning Commission public hearings on August 18, 2022, September 13 and 22, 2022 to accept public and agency comments on the General Plan Update and on the DPEIR were published in the Redding Record Searchlight and mailed to property owners and agencies, and such notice was made available at City Hall and posted on the City’s website.

CITY OF SHASTA LAKE 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CEQA CERTIFICATION WHEREAS, during the public comment period on the DPEIR comments were received from one individual and one agency, and these comments have been considered and responded to.

WHEREAS, a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in conformance with CEQA, and is comprised of the DEIR (July 2022) and all appendices thereto, the comments and responses to comments on the DEIR (FEIR Section 2.0), and identification of minor textual changes and amendments (FEIR Section 3.0).

WHEREAS, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration (EXHIBIT B) were prepared pursuant to CEQA and were considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council in their deliberations.

WHEREAS, a duly noticed Planning Commission public hearing was conducted on October 6, 2022, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC 2022-07 recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

WHEREAS, prior to making a decision to certify the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report as meeting the requirements of CEQA, the City Council reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the draft and Final PEIR and determined the EIR considers all environmental effects of the Project; is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and considered the totality of the record including public and agency comments and recommendations on the project.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake hereby finds and determines the above recitals are true and correct and have served as the basis for the actions set forth herein.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after hearing testimony, considering all evidence submitted into the administrative record, and engaging in due deliberation of the matters presented, the City Council makes the determinations and findings as set forth below in considering the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update (Plan):

1. CEQA requires the City Council to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. The City Council has determined that based on the totality of the information in the record, and as set forth in Exhibit B to this resolution, the benefits of adopting the 2040 General Plan Update, outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse environmental effects of adopting the Plan, and that the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable” in this case.

2. With respect to the FPEIR and the Plan, pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 and 15093, the City Council adopts the “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and that these findings and considerations are incorporated herein by reference.

3. The information contained in the FPEIR, together with all comments received during the public review and hearing process, have been reviewed and considered by the Council prior to making a determination to certify the FPEIR.

CITY OF SHASTA LAKE 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CEQA CERTIFICATION

4. The EIR was prepared, published, and circulated, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, objective, and complete Final Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

5. The City Council and the Planning Commission have reviewed the FPEIR and have considered the information contained in the EIR prior to acting on the proposed project.

6. Hereby certifies that the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Exhibit A) which includes by reference herein the Draft Programmatic EIR in its entirety (SCH# 2021070574), was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, State of California, §§21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.).

7. That, upon certification of the FPEIR and approval of the project, the City’s Development Services Department shall file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Shasta County and, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Section 21152.

8. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its recommendation are located at, and may be obtained from, the City of Shasta Lake Development Services Department at 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, California 96019, and on the City’s website:
www.cityofshastalake.org

9. The action of the Council reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Shasta Lake City Council.

DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
 EXHIBIT A – Draft and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the City Of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070574)  EXHIBIT B - City Of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Findings Of Fact And Statement Of Overriding Considerations RESOLUTION NO. CC-2022-##
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE ADOPTING THE 2040

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ITS RELATED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP INCLUDING MINOR TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND REPLACING THE 1999 GENERAL PLAN.

WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city.

WHEREAS, commencing in November 2014, the City initiated a multi-year process to comprehensively update the General Plan by approving a work plan and budget, hiring consultants, and conducting public workshops.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65302, a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan has been prepared to address the mandatory elements required by state law, and the 2040 General Plan Update (Exhibit A) also includes optional elements addressing Economic Development and Community Health.

WHEREAS, the City has held visioning and outreach workshops, and public meetings on multiple occasions including but not limited to November 6, 2014, January 13 and March 12, 2015; on January 13, 2020, and August 18, September 13, September 22, and October 6, 2022; for the General Plan Update, to provide the community and interested agencies with an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft General Plan prior to its adoption.

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2020-2028 Housing Element of the General Plan, and this Element is hereby incorporated in its entirety without amendment as part of the 2040 General Plan.

WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City Council adopted the 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as part of the current General Plan, and the 2040 General Plan Public Safety and Community Health Element incorporates the LHMP by policy and in its entirety without amendment as part of the 2040 General Plan Update.

WHEREAS, the Mountain Gate at Shasta Area Plan and its related Environmental Impact Report, including all required mitigation measures and conditions of development are incorporated by reference into this resolution and the 2040 General Plan Update without modification.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council received periodic briefings to consider public and agency input, to receive information relevant to the specific topics addressed in the General Plan Update, and to provide direction and guidance to staff and the consultant team regarding policies and land use designations for development of the General Plan and its land use diagram (map).

WHEREAS, the City Council did consider and accept public input on the draft General Plan Elements at noticed public meetings on November 17, 2020, January 18, 2022, and November 1, 2022.

WHEREAS, notices of the General Plan Update were mailed to affected public entities and agencies in compliance with State law (Government Code Sections 65302(g)(7), 65302.5, 65302.7, 65352, 65352(a)(9)), and in accordance with Government Code Sections 65352.3 the City contacted California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native America Heritage Commission to invite those tribes to consult on the proposed 2040 General Plan Update.

WHEREAS, the City released the Public Review Draft 2040 General Plan in its entirety on July 25, 2022, and invited comments by the public and affected agencies as required by law from July 25, 2022, through September 8, 2022.
2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADOPTION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts and identify any necessary mitigation measures for the General Plan Update project.

WHEREAS, the Programmatic EIR evaluated potential impacts and alternatives at a program-level for the 2040 General Plan Update project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the project was circulated on July 30, 2021, to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public.

WHEREAS, a EIR “scoping” meeting was held on August 9, 2021, at Shasta Lake City Hall, and public and agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting and related 30-day comment period.

WHEREAS, during the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on September 10, 2021, written comment letters were received on the NOP, and the NOP comments are provided in Appendix A of the Draft PEIR.

WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft PEIR was published in the Redding Record-Searchlight as required by law, and circulated to the State Clearinghouse, all relevant agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public comment period, commencing on July 25, 2022, and ending on September 8, 2022.

WHEREAS, a total of forty-seven (47) written comments were received during the public review period on the draft General Plan, and 12 written comments were received on the Draft Programmatic EIR, and pursuant to state law and the CEQA Guidelines, written responses to those comments when required have been prepared and included as part of the public record.

WHEREAS, a notice of the City Council public hearing to consider adoption of the 2040 General Plan Update was published in the Redding Record-Searchlight, a newspaper of general circulation on October 17, 2022, and posted on the City of Shasta Lake municipal webpage, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090.

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 1, 2022, to consider the General Plan Update and the Final Programmatic EIR prepared for the project, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard.

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered all evidence in the record submitted in connection with the General Plan Update and the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, including the staff report, public testimony, and other documents and evidence that are the City administrative record for these actions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby make the following findings, determinations, and decisions regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan Update:

1. The City Council has considered the administrative record and all public comment received on the 2040 General Plan Update, and utilized its independent judgment in acting on the information contained in this resolution.

2. In accordance with Government Code Section 65302 and other applicable provisions of State law, the comprehensive 2040 Update to the General Plan as amended (Exhibit A) has been prepared in compliance with state law and local ordinance, and addresses all applicable mandatory General Plan Elements as required by state law.

3. The City Council does hereby adopt the 2040 City of Shasta Lake General Plan Update and related Land Use Map, incorporating the minor modifications to the Land Use Diagram and the Draft 2040 General Plan Update as set forth in Exhibit B to this resolution. 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADOPTION RESOLUTION

4. The Mountain Gate at Shasta Area Plan and its related Environmental Impact Report, including all required mitigation measures and conditions of development are incorporated into the 2040 General Plan Update by reference and without modification.

5. All new development within the Mountain Gate at Shasta Area Plan shall be allowed to proceed consistent with the standards and policies of the Area Plan, and including any development approvals, entitlements and rights granted thereto by the City. Where the Area Plan is silent as to specific policy or direction which is contained within the 2040 General Plan Update, the General Plan shall apply to the degree that such compliance does not modify or prevent implementation of entitlements granted prior to the adoption date of this resolution.

6. The 2020-2028 Housing Element and attachments are incorporated into the 2040 General Plan Update without amendment.

7. The 2022-2027 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and related attachments are incorporated into the 2040 General Plan Update without amendment.

The above recitals are true and correct and include by reference the totality of the administrative record.

These facts support the decision to adopt this Resolution, and the related Ordinance implementing the 2040 General Plan Update.

DULY PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Incorporated by Reference - 2040 Public Release Draft 2040 General Plan and Land Use Diagram https://www.cityofshastalake.org/1207/General-Plan-Update-2040. (Draft 2040 General Plan provided under separate cover).

Exhibit B: Text and Land Use Modifications to the Draft 2040 General Plan and Land Use Diagram (Nov.1, 2022).

Exhibit C: General Plan Land Use Diagram, as amended (Nov. 1, 2022) ORDINANCE NO. CC-2022-##
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF THE CITY OF

SHASTA LAKE, PROVIDING FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THE PLAN AND FOR

INTERIM ZONING, CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE GENERAL PLAN.

WHEREAS, the Government Code requires that all municipalities prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for the present and future needs of the municipality and the growth and development of all property within the municipality.

WHEREAS, the Government Code allows the City to adopt ordinances and standards to reasonably regulate the development of property and to protect public safety and the environment consistent with the direction provided by the adopted General Plan.

WHEREAS, the City has received public input on the 2040 General Plan Update and the related Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) prepared for the project through multiple outreach efforts including direct mailed notice to property owners, noticed public meetings, workshops, on-line postings, and community surveys.

WHEREAS, after a noticed public hearing on October 6, 2022, the City of Shasta Lake Planning Commission recommended to the City Council adoption of the Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update, and certification of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) prepared for the General Plan Update.

WHEREAS, the Shasta Lake City Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2022, which hearing was preceded by the posting of public notices within the City limits of the City of Shasta Lake and publication of a notice in the Redding Record-Searchlight on October 17, 2022, in accordance with the California Government Code.

WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan Update of the City of Shasta Lake has been developed to guide development in compliance with State Law.

WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 1, 2022, and considered all public testimony and all written materials and other information in the record regarding the proposed General Plan Update, as well as this implementing Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake, State of California, as follows:

SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on November 1, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update, which incorporates Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations within and according to the provisions of CEQA. The City Council determines that this Ordinance is within the scope of, and shall be considered part of, that CEQA action.

SECTION 2: ADOPTION OF THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

The City Council makes the following findings and determinations:

A. The 2040 General Plan Update will further the public necessity, convenience and general welfare. Implementation of the Plan will provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision-making processes of the City relative to the development of property and in the shaping character of the community. The General Plan Update will preserve and enhance the quality of life of residents by supporting orderly and safe development of a variety of living environments, and accommodating growth necessary to provide for the economic well-being and housing needs of the community .

B. The 2040 General Plan Update as implemented by the General Plan and Municipal Code of the City complies with the applicable Government Code requirements of the State of California.

C. The 2040 General Plan Update is consistent with state law and City Council direction, and the City Council finds adoption of the General Plan and Interim zoning provisions will protect the public safety, health, and welfare by:
i. Providing for adequate housing sites for current and future residents of the city; ii. Providing for infill residential and other development on underutilized or vacant infill sites thereby facilitating the production of housing units, new and expanded commercial services, new and expanded industrial development, while also prioritizing minimal displacement of existing residents and businesses;
iii. Providing direction for the efficient and well-planned utilization of public and private resources within appropriate limits to achieve a development pattern as reflected in the General Plan Update Land Use Diagram, which will support the economic health and prosperity of the community;
iv. Supporting the conservation, preservation, and protection of important natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands within the community; v. Providing direction necessary to support the health and safety of current and future residents of the City of Shasta Lake;
vi. Implementing the adopted Housing Element and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. vii. Protecting the public safety, health, and welfare, by prohibiting any uses that may conflict with the General Plan, adopted specific plan, or zoning proposal or permit that the legislative body, planning commission or the Development Services Department is considering, or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time.

D. The City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update and related FPEIR, including all resolutions, maps and attachments there to, are hereby incorporated by reference as “Exhibit A” to this ordinance, and the 2040 General Plan Update is adopted as the official General Plan of the City of Shasta Lake, as set forth herein.

SECTION 3: CODIFICATION AND INCLUSION IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

A. Codification and Inclusion in the Municipal Code
It is the intent of the City Council that the provisions of this ordinance be made part of the Shasta Lake Municipal Code as adopted, and that where the General Plan is referenced in the Municipal Code it shall be referencing the 2040 General Plan Update, that sections of this ordinance may be re-numbered or re-lettered, and that the ordinance may be modified to reflect appropriate section, chapter, or other such appropriate word or phrase to accomplish such intent regardless of whether such inclusion in the Code is accomplished.

B. Interim Zoning
The General Plan is an overarching policy document while the Zoning Ordinance is a regulatory document that ensures the implementation of the General Plan’s goals and polices through the application of specific criteria and standards. The City intends to prepare a comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as required by law. In the interim, the City must adopt a set of procedures and standards that will provide a legal basis for the development review process for those areas where inconsistencies may exist between the 2040 General Plan Update and the existing Zoning Ordinance.

The City Council hereby directs that the City Manager and/or designee shall return to the City Council within a reasonable period, not to exceed 90 days following adoption of the 2040 General Plan, with an Interim Zoning Ordinance for review and action by the City Council. It shall be based on the following general criteria:
i. The purpose of the Interim Zoning Ordinance is to establish zoning standards consistent with the General Plan, adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2022, and to apply such interim standards until such time as the City Council adopts a new comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that is fully consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update. ii. The Interim Zoning Ordinance shall establish “interim zones” consistent with the General Plan.
iii. The Interim Zoning Ordinance shall govern the City’s determinations of whether development applications conform to the 2040 General Plan until the City Council adopts a permanent and comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
iv. The current Zoning Ordinance shall continue to apply until such time that the Interim Zoning Ordinance and/or a comprehensively updated Zoning Ordinance is adopted. v. All existing definitions in the Municipal Code are incorporated by reference. vi. All development subject to this Ordinance shall follow the procedures for site plan review and obtaining permits and other approvals as specified in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code.
vii. The City Manager, or designee, shall have the authority to determine whether a development application conforms to the 2040 General Plan according to the criteria for General Plan conformity determinations established in the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and issue a written decision where necessary. The decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission consistent with the provisions contained in the Municipal Code. The Commission shall act on any appeal of such decision at a duly noticed public hearing. viii. The Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. In considering an appeal, the appeal body shall determine whether the application conforms to the adopted 2040 General Plan and may affirm, overturn, or modify the City Manager determination.

The decision of the appeal body shall be made by resolution. ix. Any application for a proposed use that does not conform to the General Plan shall not be accepted or approved, except that at the applicant’s option, the applicant may modify the project to conform to the adopted General Plan or may apply for a General Plan Amendment and related Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
x. These regulations are enacted pursuant to the Authority for adopting interim zoning regulations established in the Government Code Section 65858 (a).

SECTION 4: CORRECTION OF TEXTURAL AND FIGURE ERRORS (SCRIVENER’S ERRORS) IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AS ADOPTED.

Typographical errors, notation or reference errors, formatting errors and other scrivener’s errors which may exist at the time of adoption of the 2040 General Plan which do not affect the intent of this ordinance, or the purposes and direction of the adopted General Plan, including within any attachment or appendix there to, may be corrected at the direction of the City Manager or designee, without need of separate public hearing or amendment of the General Plan, by filing a corrected or re-codified copy of the same in the records of the City.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this ordinance or the applications thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the ordinance and the applications of such provision will remain in effect to the extent permitted by law.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days following its second reading and posting as provided for by the Municipal Code and/or State law.

DULY PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________________
RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
Attachments
Exhibit A: City of Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan Update and related Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, including all resolutions, maps and attachments there to.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT -NOVEMBER 1, 2022 1
ATTACHMENT A - BACKGROUND MEMO ON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE BACKGROUND
 Growth Projections
The General Plan 2040 Update reflects both projected growth that is expected through 2040, and total potential growth assuming full buildout of the land area within City limits. The City has a large amount of vacant land area in relation to its total population and its historic growth rates since incorporation.

Buildout of the entire General Plan land area at the maximum development potential for residential, commercial, and industrial development is identified in the Plan but is extremely unlikely to ever be achieved. However, projected growth during the 20-year life of the Plan is based on historic trends in the community over the previous 20 years, and assumes a residential growth rate of 0.9% per year, and a commercial/industrial growth rate of 1.02% as reflected in the following tables:

Table 1 - Residential Development Potential Table
20-Year Projections Annual Projections
Growth
Rate
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth3
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth
Compound
Annual
Growth Rate
(CAGR)
550 1,371 28 69 0.7%

6.0% 5 11 0 1 0.5%

25.0% 4 10 0 0 5.6%

13.0% 268 666 13 33 1.7%

4.0% 274 683 14 34 0.5%
149 372 7 19 1.2%

27.0% 28 71 1 4 4.1%

12.0% 121 301 6 15 1.1%
152 380 8 19 8.4%

1.2% 126 313 6 16 19.0%

4.8% 27 67 1 3 2.9%
852 2,122 43 106 0.9%

Table 2 - Commercial/Industrial Development Potential Table 20-Year Projections Annual Projections
Growth
Rate
Square Feet
Growth
Employment
Growth3 (Jobs)
Square Feet
Growth
Compound
Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR)
60,304 147 3,015 0.88%

1.0% 60,304 147 3,015 0.88%
202,070 269 10,103 0.83%

0.9% 181,256 242 9,063 0.75%

1.2% 20,814 28 1,041 7.01%
115,411 286 5,771 2.00%

0.9% 109,772 273 5,489 13.97%

1.0% 5,639 13 282 0.12%
377,784 703 18,889 1.02%
CITY COUNCIL REPORT -NOVEMBER 1, 2022 2
ATTACHMENT A - BACKGROUND MEMO ON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE  Elements
The term “element” refers to the topics that California law requires to be covered in a general plan (Gov.

Code § 65302). Those elements include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety and Environmental Justice. Once added into a general plan, each element assumes the same legal standing, and must be internally consistent with the other elements. The City of Shasta Lake is exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Justice Element. The draft Elements are briefly described below.
1) Vision Statement: The Vision Statement is developed in the first part of the planning process and helps shape the direction of General Plan. The vision and its 10 “General Plan Element Goals” guide the development of the goals and policies of the Plan as reflected in the seven mandatory elements. At the public workshops’ participants were asked what they value about the City of Shasta Lake and what they would like to see improved in the future. Areas such as social and economic well-being, physical character of the built environment, arts and culture, growth and development standards, and employment were important issues considered as part of the vision. 2) Land Use Element: The Land Use Element, and the Land Use and Circulation Diagrams (Maps), designate the location, distribution, and extent of all land uses which will shape the future physical development of the City. The Land Use Element sets forth specific goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide land use and community development through 2040. The draft Land Use Element creates 14 separate Land Use Districts in the City. Once the Plan is adopted, these districts will govern the type and intensity of use of properties in the City. The General Plan Land Use Map, Land Use Classifications, and related goals and policies will become the foundation of the update of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map which will be required following adoption of the Plan update.
3) Housing Element. The City of Shasta Lake’s Housing Element serves to understand and analyze the City’s housing needs and to develop programs and policies that can help meet those identified needs. The Housing Element is a component of the City’s 2040 General Plan, which demonstrates that the City is adequately planning to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community and that the Housing Element is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element was adopted in 2021, and will be in place through 2028 when the next update of the Element must be completed.
4) Circulation Element: The Circulation Element focuses on the movement of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communication through the City of Shasta Lake. The policies and implementation actions in the Land Use Element tie directly to those in the Circulation Element. Creating connected and complete systems of circulation and utility networks requires coordination between land use and circulation planning. 5) Conservation Element: The City of Shasta Lake is home to a range of natural resources that help define the City’s identity, and that are relied upon for continued economic prosperity. This element addresses the conservation, development, and utilization of the water, forests, soils and minerals, wildlife and energy conservation. The Conservation Element establishes goals for the retention, enhancement, and development of these natural resources in coordination with the CITY COUNCIL REPORT -NOVEMBER 1, 2022 3
ATTACHMENT A - BACKGROUND MEMO ON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Open Space Elements. Together, these elements guide conservation efforts by balancing the City’s development policies with environmental preservation. 6) Open Space Element. In California, open space is defined as any parcel or area of land or water that is unimproved and devoted to open-space use. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65560(b)). The General Plan Vision Statement recognizes that parks and recreational amenities are critical to creating a high quality of life for all citizens, and the Open Space Element implements a community vision to protect and enhance the City’s open space resources including trails, parks, and other recreational amenities. The Open Space Element works in coordination with the Land Use and Conservation Elements to achieve the General Plan vision.
7) Public Safety and Community Health Element (including Air Quality and Noise). The City of Shasta Lake is a vibrant and diverse community that strives to provide safety and access to healthy lifestyles to its residents. This element identifies potential hazards and pollution sources, discusses important public safety issues, and highlights other community health, wellness, and safety priorities. The element provides goals, policies, and implementation actions to mitigate and protect the community against associated impacts. Specific topics covered in this element include:
▪ Public Safety and Emergency Response
▪ Natural Hazards
▪ Community Health and Wellness
▪ Environmental Quality (including Noise and Air Quality) The Noise and Air Quality sections were developed utilizing the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements for the needed analysis. The Public Safety Element also includes the “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan” adopted in May 2022, and the SB 379 required “Climate Vulnerability Assessment” which is now a major statewide priority in efforts to protect property and the public from the hazards of flooding and wildland fires.
 Public and Agency Comments Considered
Included in this packet are the “Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations Matrix” which was used by the Planning Commission in its consideration. A total of 47 relevant comments were extracted to allow comments to be addressed in an efficient manner by staff and policy makers.

Some individual comments contain multiple requested modifications or additions to Plan goals and policies, or to the direction of the Plan. Several of the comments are applicable to the adopted Housing Element.

In addition, the “Planning Commission’s Recommended Modifications and Additions to the Draft 2040 General Plan Update” are included as well. If accepted by the City Council at time of adoption of the Plan, these changes will be incorporated into the 2040 General Plan Update.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22
Planning Commission Recommended Modifications and/or Additions to the Draft 2040 General Plan Update
The following modifications and/or additions to the draft 2040 General Plan and Land Use Diagram that were approved for circulation by the City Council on January 18, 2022, were reviewed by the Planning Commission at noticed public hearings on Aug 18, September 13 and 22, and October 6, 2022.

The changes recommended by the Planning Commission, reflect responses to public and agency comments received on the draft General Plan, the draft Land Use Diagram, and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Provided under separate cover are the comments and responses to comments on the General Plan.

Planning Commission recommended modifications and additions reflect changes in response to the following:

I. Responses to comments on the General Plan and modifications which are needed to meet state planning law requirements;
II. Responses to issues and comments identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project; and
III. Modifications to the draft Land Use Diagram addressing comments or requests received by the Commission on draft land use designations.

Classification and Tracking Nomenclature
Commission recommended changes to policies circulated in the Draft Plan are identified by underlines or strikeouts. The comment numbering (ex: Comment A-7) in this document matches the comment or change tracking number reflected in the document: “2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review: Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations” considered by the Commission prior to their action, and provided to the City Council under separate cover on 10/21/22.

RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS

1. Comment A-7 modification to Circulation Element Title page to read as follows:
"CIRCULATION - focuses on moving people, vehicles, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communication within the City of Shasta Lake. Creating connected, accessible, and complete systems of infrastructure networks and ensuring access to opportunities and transportation systems within a community and region requires coordination between land use and circulation planning.”

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

2. Comment A-8 modification to Circulation Element text as shown below:

Pg. 4-14, last paragraph: Bikeways, defined as all facilities that are primarily provided for bicycle travel, are identified by Class I, II, III, and IV based on a bicyclist’s level of comfort and the amount of protection from vehicles and the roadway. Figure 4-6 illustrates levels of comfort for users of the various bikeway classification levels.

3. Comment A-17 modification to the title page of the Public Safety and Community Development Element. PUBLIC SAFETY & COMMUNITY HEALTH reduces risk of public harm, property damage, and economic impacts from natural hazards, identifies public safety and emergency evacuation measures, and fosters overall community health.

4. Comment A-23 modification under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Add IMPLEMENTATION-HS-7.9: Discourage or restrict the location of sources of harmful or addictive substances near schools, youth centers, and other similar facilities, potentially through policy or regulatory changes consistent with the Land Use Element. Sources of such substances may include tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis retailers, among others. (Source: New) Responsibility: City Development Services Department and SCHHSA Time Frame: 1-5 years
Funding Source: General fund (staff)

5. Comment A-24 under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Add the following phrase to paragraph 2, page 7-38: “Along this stretch of Shasta Dam Boulevard, between Interstate 5 and the Union Pacific Railroad underpass, there are two health care clinics, two dental service providers, two vision service providers, and one mental health counseling service, and one substance abuse treatment provider.”

6. Comment A-24 under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Add the following sentence to paragraph 3, page 7-38: “Additional substance abuse (or substance use disorder) treatment facilities are located to the south in the City of Redding. These facilities offer resources and services to assist residents in cessation and recovery for abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful or addictive substances.”

7. Update IMPLEMENTATION HS-7.5:
“Support the development and continuation of high-quality health care services, including services for vision, dental, and mental health, and substance abuse care, and promote connectivity to those services through transit and active transportation options, consistent with the Circulation and Land Use Elements.”

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

8. Figure 7-18 (page 7-37) is also updated with the location of the SHASTA COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINIC treatment facility.

9. Comment A-25, under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Update POLICY HS-7.5:
“Encourage the co-location and accessibility of health care services, including for vision, dental, and mental health, and substance abuse care.”

10. Comment A-32 modification. Public Safety and Community Development Element. Update to Implementation Action HS-7.6
“Evaluate existing supportive service programs and promote new programs that increase the capacity for aging-in-place through active engagement with the senior community. Work with the development community to identify and encourage new housing designs that will support agingin-place. (Source: New)”

11. Added required CONSERVATION ELEMENT SECTION 5.4 – Conservation of Soil and Mineral Resources
The General Plan Conservation Element includes text and policies which are necessary to comply with state law. The Conservation Element must address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, including soils and mineral resources [required by CGC 65302(d)].

These resources are considered ofstatewide significance as they are needed to both maintain and repair current infrastructure, and to construct future projects. They are addressed in the General Plan to ensure the continued availability and sustainability of surface soils and subsurface mineral deposits (See Figure 5-7 Mineral Resource Zones, below).

Although included in the 1999 General Plan, this discussion and the related policies were not included in the draft General Plan authorized by the City Council for circulation on January 18, 2022. The Section was provided to the State Department of Conservation for review, and added to the draft Plan prior to public circulation of the Plan on July 25, 2022.

The policy language primarily carries forward policies from the 1999 Plan, but strengthens the requirement that such activities cannot occur be approved where they would preclude successfully achieving implementation of other General Plan goals. Implementation measure CON

5.6 was added to establish a higher level of discretionary review and protection for the environment and surrounding uses.

The complete new Section is available for review in the Draft General Plan provided to the Council in July, and on-line in the Conservation Element: City-of-Shasta-Lake-General-Plan-2040 (cityofshastalake.org), pages 5- 16 through 5-17, and Pages 5-27 through 5-28.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

11. Response to potential environmental impact identified in Draft PEIR.

Environmental Impact 4.18-5 states: “There could be insufficient water supplies available to serve development under the 2040 General Plan during dry and multiple dry years.” (See Final PEIR Table 4.0-1: “Effects Determined to have a Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” and recommended Mitigation Measure 4.18-1).

Inclusion of the following Policy and Implementation Actions in the Conservation Element of the General Plan to address the identified potential impacts, thereby supporting the “Self-Mitigating” General Plan policy framework that is a foundational goal of the project. The EIR identifies that to minimize potential water supply impacts during dry and multiple dry years, the City should implement the following policies and actions in the General Plan:
a. Add Policy CON 4.8 to the General Plan Conservation Element: Prior to the approval of major new development, Specific Plans, major infrastructure improvements, or other projects that would result in significant increased demand on existing water supplies, require that projects demonstrate proof of availability of adequate water supply (e.g., that existing supplies are adequate to accommodate the increased project demand, or that improvements to the capacity of the system to meet the increased demand will be made prior to project implementation), and that potential impacts to water supplies will be addressed.
b. Add Implementation Action CON-4.9 to the General Plan Conservation Element: As part of the development review process require new large-scale development to mitigate the potential project demand on the community’s available water supply. c. Add Implementation Action CON-4.10 to the General Plan Conservation Element:

Explore opportunities to develop mechanisms and infrastructure to deliver reclaimed water to city water users from the City’s Wastewater Treatment System and other sources.

12. Response to potential environmental impacts identified in the Draft PEIR Section 4.13 Noise.

Noise modeling developed to complete the analysis of noise impacts from transportation sources in the draft Environmental Impact Report has resulted in the need for modification under Noise Goal HS-8 of Policy HS 8.3, and the addition of Policy 8.4. Inclusion of the following revisions in the Public Safety and Community Health Element – Noise Section of the General Plan to address the identified potential impacts , will support the “Self-Mitigating” General Plan policy framework that is a foundational goal of the project.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22
HS-8.3 New development shall use appropriate site planning and building design to reduce undesirable noise impacts in accordance with standards established through the Noise Ordinance. (Modified)
HS-8.4. The noise sensitivity of land uses as established in Figure 7-24 [Figure 4.13-5 of this Draft PEIR] shall be used in the location of new development, new circulation improvements, and preparation of general plan amendments and specific plans. The noise exposure level shall be established by reference to the noise contour maps (Figure 7-26 and Figure 7-27) [Figures 4.13-2,

4.13-3, 4.13-4, and 4.13-7 of this Draft PEIR] or project-specific measurements or calculations made pursuant to the Noise Ordinance. The guidelines in Figure 7-24 [Figure 4.13-5 of this Draft DEIR] shall be applied with the degree of flexibility required in each case to achieve a sound and feasible land use decision. (New)

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
The following Land Use modifications have been recommended to the City Council.

13. Comment P4 modification: Change parcels 006-470-008, 006-470-007 and 006-470-006 on Lake Blvd. from draft Land Use Diagram proposed “Urban Residential” designation, to “Village Mixed Use” designation to match adjacent properties VMU designations.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

14. Comment P4 modification: Retain “IL” designation on APN 007-190-006. Property owner requested at PC meeting on 8/18 that parcel remain UR rather than Industrial-Light (“IL”) as reflected in the draft General Plan. The Commission reviewed the request on 9/13/22, and after consideration recommended that given the property location within the surrounding Light Industrial area, and the noise impact and air-quality impact contours from I-5 (as reflected in General Plan land use and health and safety policies), determined the property should remain “IL” designation as reflected in the draft General Plan Land Use Diagram.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

15. Comment P6 modification on APN 005-130-081: Request from adjacent property owner. 1999 General Plan designation is Urban Residential. The Commission recommended change from “VMU” to “UR” based on property topographic issues and frontage access is only available from Front Street, a residential street. VMU designation was applied because of property abutting Shasta Dam Blvd. Change from VMU to UR was reviewed with the property owner who requested that the property retain VMU. Current 1999 Plan zoning on the property is “R-4”, Multiple Family Residential.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

16. Recommendation – Mapping Error for APN 075-030-003. The draft General Plan Land Use Diagram was circulated with the property identified as 50% “Industrial (I)” and 50% “Suburban Residential”.

The entirety of the property should have been identified as “Suburban Residential (SR),” and the property owner was noticed regarding the full SR designation.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

17. Mapping Error - Draft General Plan Land Use Map for APN 007-140-076, adjacent to Shasta Lake School; 9.65 acres. The property is identified as “PF” but is not part of the school site and is privately owned. Property should be Urban Residential (UR) to match adjacent properties.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

17. Mapping error - draft General Plan Land Use Diagram for APN# 007-230-001; 3.07 ac. Adjacent to I/5. The draft Land Use Diagram reflects the entirety of the property as Open Space (OS), and it should be designated as Urban Residential High – B (URH-B). URH-B reflects the adjacent undeveloped property designations. Given that the property is sandwiched between developed property and I-5, potential highway noise and air quality impact issues, and a property shape that is difficult for development, its viability for future residential development may be limited. (Parcel is 3.07 acres/49 potential units.)

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

18. Mapping error - draft General Plan Land Use Diagram for APNs 007-230-001, 006-610-041; Lake Blvd., 25.11 acres; Property is owned by the City of Shasta Lake. Property is designated as Suburban Residential (SR) in the draft Land Use Diagram and should be designated as Public Facility (PF).

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

19. Ashby Road Right-of-Way, multiple parcels (see exhibit) 005-690-001, 002, and -003, total .41 acres.

Properties are owned by the City and were reflected as Village-Commercial (VC) on the land use map.

Should be designated as Public Facilities (PF) at this time.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

20. Ashby Road Right-of-Way, multiple parcels (see exhibit) totaling 1.15 acres. Parcels are reflected as entirely Ashby Road right-of-way. The change would differentiate between the 80-foot Ashby Road Right-of-Way, with the remainder of the parcels designated as Urban Residential (UR).

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

21. Ashby Road Right-of-Way, multiple parcels (see exhibit) 005-690-004, and 005; Ashby Road .68 acres. Parcels are reflected as entirely Ashby Road right-of-way, and are City owned. The map should be amended to differentiate between 80-foot Ashby Road Right-of-Way, with the remainder of the parcels designated as Public Facilities (PF)

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

22. 006-030-035, Ashby Road, 5.74 acres. Parcel is City owned is entirely reflected as Ashby Road rightof-way. The map should be amended to differentiate between 80-foot Ashby Road Right-of-Way, from the remainder of the parcel designated as Public Facilities (PF). Currently is used by Public Works as a materials yard.

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

23. 007-230-004 PG&E, 1.5 acres. Parcel is reflected as Urban Residential High – B (URH-B), and is owned by PG&E (substation use). The parcel should be designated as Public Facilities (PF).

EXHIBIT B - CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION DRAFT 2040 COMMISSION RECOMMENDED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS 11/01/22

24. Recommendation –General Plan Land Use Diagram for AP# 007-140-094, 14.07 AC; SHASTA VERDE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC. The draft General Plan Land Use Diagram was circulated with the property as “Suburban Residential (SR).” The Planning Commission recommends that the property be designated as “Urban Residential (UR),” 6-12 Units per Acre as requested by the property owner.

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan EIR Data
6/6
10/26/2022
FINAL 10/19/2022
2040 GP LAND USE DIAGRAM
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan EIR Data
1/6
10/26/2022
FINAL 10/19/2022

LAND USE BUILDOUT TABLES

1.1 Residential Unit Buildout
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH & CAPACITY 20-Year Projections Annual Projections General Plan Land Use Density Existing Units
Developable
Acres1
Capacity
(Units) Buildout2 (Units)
Growth
Rate
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth3
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth
Compound
Annual
Growth Rate
(CAGR)
SINGLE FAMILY 3,645 2,061 12,591 9,009 550 1,371 28 69 0.7% Rural Residential A 1 DU/2 acres 43 118 119 76 6.0% 5 11 0 1 0.5% Rural Residential B 1 DU/5 acres 2 80 18 16 25.0% 4 10 0 0 5.6% Suburban Residential 3 DU/1 acres 685 947 2,731 2,058 13.0% 268 666 13 33 1.7% Urban Residential 12 DU/1 acres 2,915 918 9,723 6,859 4.0% 274 683 14 34 0.5% MULTI-FAMILY 542 81 1,650 1,114 149 372 7 19 1.2%
Urban Residential High A 30 DU/1 acres 23 4 128 105 27.0% 28 71 1 4 4.1% Urban Residential High B 20 DU/1 acres 519 77 1,522 1,009 12.0% 121 301 6 15 1.1% MIXED USE 38 396 11,076 11,038 152 380 8 19 8.4%
Mixed Use 30 DU/1 acres 4 389 10,479 10,475 1.2% 126 313 6 16 19.0% Village Mixed Use 30 DU/1 acres 34 8 597 563 4.8% 27 67 1 3 2.9% Grand Total 4,225 2,539 25,317 21,161 852 2,122 43 106 0.9%

1. Developable acreage includes only developable land on which unit calculations are made. This area excludes floodplain, wetlands, and >20% slope. It also includes proportional area splitting for mixed use parcels.

1.2 Commercial Floor Area Buildout
COMMERCIAL GROWTH & CAPACITY 20-Year Projections Annual Projections General Plan Land Use Intensity
Existing
Building Square
Feet
Developable Lot
Square Footage1
Capacity (Square
Feet)
Buildout2
(Square Feet) Growth Rate
Square Feet
Growth
Employment
Growth3 (Jobs)
Square Feet
Growth
Compound
Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR)
COMMERCIAL 316,096 3,165,574 6,331,148 6,030,378 60,304 147 3,015 0.88% Commercial 2 FAR 316,096 3,165,574 6,331,148 6,030,378 1.0% 60,304 147 3,015 0.88% INDUSTRIAL 1,129,784 23,003,833 23,003,833 21,874,049 202,070 269 10,103 0.83% Industrial 1 FAR 1,122,544 21,262,107 21,262,107 20,139,563 0.9% 181,256 242 9,063 0.75% Industrial Light 1 FAR 7,240 1,741,726 1,741,726 1,734,486 1.2% 20,814 28 1,041 7.01% MIXED USE 237,619 12,460,415 12,970,197 12,760,736 115,411 286 5,771 2.00% Mixed Use 1 FAR 8,671 12,205,524 12,205,524 12,196,853 0.9% 109,772 273 5,489 13.97% Village Mixed Use 3 FAR 228,948 254,891 764,673 563,883 1.0% 5,639 13 282 0.12% Grand Total 1,683,499 38,629,822 42,305,178 40,665,163 377,784 703 18,889 1.02%

1. Constrained lot square footage includes only developable land on which unit calculations are made.

This area excludes floodplain, wetlands, and >20% slope. It also includes proportional area splitting for mixed use parcels and lot efficiency factors for each land use.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 1

OVERVIEW
The General Plan is comprehensive and long-range in its scope. It will be used on an ongoing basis to direct the City’s decision making, reflecting the community’s commitment that all actions related to the City’s physical development should be consistent with the General Plan vision. The General Plan is a statement of the community’s vision of its long-term or ultimate physical form, as well as its development policies. A city’s general plan is fundamentally the set of policies that govern and guide City actions on which development regulations and decisions must be based. The general plan must be geographically comprehensive, applying throughout the entire incorporated area and the Sphere of Influence. The general plan must also address the full range of issues that affect the City’s physical development.

Purpose
The General Plan is based upon goals and policies. Each has a distinctive meaning and purpose in the planning process. Together, goals and policies serve as the basis for development and progress decisions. They are implemented by legislative and policy actions throughout the city, such as the zoning ordinance, regulations, capital improvement programs, and building code enforcement. The purpose of this document is to provide a consolidated source of requests and comments for policy maker consideration, prior to action to adopt the Shasta Lake General Plan 2040 Update.

The General Plan 2040 Update and related Environmental Impact Report were released for public review on July 25, 2022, and the comment period closed on September 8, 2022. Most comments received from outside agencies and members of the public are focused on land use boundary changes (reflected in the General Plan land use diagram), requests for policy additions or modifications. The consulting team and staff have reviewed these comments, provided responses, and have made recommendations as reflected in the table below. Major requested changes to the Plan are reflected in the table. Minor changes or comments - such as “Scribner” errors (ex: spelling errors, grammar, incorrect references, etc.) - which do not materially affect the meanings or purposes of policy or text are acknowledged, but are not reflected below. Such edits will be made in the Plan prior to final publication following Plan adoption.

Methodology
“Comment analysis” is a process used to compile and combine similar public and agency comments into a format that can be used in organizing, clarifying, and addressing comments. It can also aid in identifying the topics and issues to be evaluated and considered throughout the Plan adoption process. The information in this document is intended to be a summary of the comments received, rather than a statistical analysis.

The analysis process attempts to capture the substantive comments or concerns received on the draft Plan, not general statements or editorial comments about the quality of the Plan. All comments received on or before September 8, 2022 (close of 45-day formal comment period) are addressed where possible. The emphasis in evaluating a comment is on the intent of the comment rather than the number of times a comment was received. All comments were read and analyzed. Comments received during the 45-day review period do not necessarily represent the sentiments of all members of the public or all affected agencies.

Summary of Comments
A total of 47 relevant comments were extracted to allow comments to be addressed in an efficient manner by staff and policy makers. Some individual comments contain multiple requested modifications or additions to Plan goals and policies, or to the direction of the Plan. Several of the comments are applicable to the adopted Housing Element. An update to the Housing Element is not part of this General Plan update process. A comprehensive update to the General Plan Housing Element was adopted by the City Council, and was certified by the State of California in late spring 2020. The next update to the Housing Element should commence in the period 2026-2027. Comments that have been received include a general focus on the following topics:
• Eliminating or reducing impacts from potential habitat removal that could result from development activity envisioned under the Plan, and from the introduction of new development in currently undeveloped areas.
• Changes to natural resources management and protection polices, including suggestions for additional policy language that require implementation of a “creek corridor management program” that will and reestablish creek corridors to their pre-city development condition where possible. • Expanding or modifying Housing Element policies to promote or require regulations that limit or prohibit smoking in multi-family housing developments. • Expanding Public Safety and Community Health Element policies to further aging-in-place opportunities for seniors, and to address youth access to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. • Expanding and/or modifying transportation related policies in the Plan to further prioritize non-motorized transportation modes and opportunities, and to prioritize non-vehicle related infrastructure improvements over vehicle related road construction.
• Additions of policies relative to energy conservation.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 2
Organization of Responses and Recommended Modifications Recommended additions or changes requested by agencies, organizations or the public during review of the public draft Plan are provided below, and are identified by Element. An explanation of the response or recommendation is provided for each comment received. Recommended modifications are color coded, and shown as strikeouts for deletions and underlines for additions, based on the following approach:
• All content highlighted in blue represents recommended modifications to the General Plan policy, tables, or text. • Text that is blue with a strike or underline running through it represents recommended text modifications to a policy or discussion (including in recommended policies or text provided or recommended by commenters).
• Text in orange represents a requested modification to the Plan that is believed unnecessary or not recommended.

List of Commenters
Comments were received from the following organizations and individuals. Copies of relevant original correspondence are attached.

1. Agencies and Organizations
o Shasta County HHSA – Public Health; Amy Prendergast, MPH; Healthy & Safe Families Program Manager.

2. Individuals
o Pat Lind, City of Shasta Lake Resident
o Gracious Palmer, City of Shasta Lake Resident
City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 3
Response to Comments and Recommendations Matrix
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response

AGENCY COMMENTS
A-1 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Healthy Shasta. Correction: There are several references to Healthy Shasta being a local ‘organization.’ Healthy Shasta is a collaborative of organizations with a vision to ‘make the healthy choice the easy choice,’ especially around physical activity and healthy eating.

1. The City of Shasta Lake is one of many partners in this collaborative effort.

2. References to Healthy Shasta being an ‘organization’ were noticed on page 7-36 and 7-43.

Comment noted and acknowledged. No modification recommended at this time. "Healthy Shasta" is understood to be a collaborative organization made up of multiple entities and individuals. The term "organization" is generally defined as a collection of people or entities who are involved in pursuing defined objectives. An organization can be a group of entities sharing common interests and purpose, or a social unit that comprises individuals who work together to achieve a common goal. In all cases it is a structured unit where the role, responsibilities, and authorities of each member are defined, and the relationships between the members of the organization are established. This is the case with “Healthy Shasta” A-2 Housing
Element
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

2.1.6.1 Homeless Persons (Pg. 3A-28)

1. Narrative (first paragraph): Remove the term “throwaway” (and just use the language from within the brackets). Ex: There are homeless people who are not yet adults, including youth who have run away, who have parents that will not allow them to live at home, or who have no safe place to go.

Comment noted. No modification recommended at this time.

The proposed text modification is appropriate, however the 6th Cycle (2020-2028) update of the Housing Element was completed and adopted in August 2020, and modification or update of the Element is not under consideration at this time. Addressing this comment is appropriate at the time the next planned update to the Element is undertaken.

A-3 Land Use,
Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

2.10 Potential Pollution Exposure Near Roadways (Pg. 2-45): Narrative talks about CARB recommendations for siting sensitive land uses at least 500 feet from the freeway; and that there are a low-income apartment projects and market rate single- and multi-family residences within 500-feet of I-5. Locating housing outside of this 500 foot, preferably 1,000 foot, is important, compounded when I-5 northbound is closed, resulting in the backup of idling trucks and vehicles.

1. However there do not appear to be policy or implementation strategies to address this? Consider strategies to rezone properties, restrict construction of sensitive uses, require upgraded air filtration systems, or other strategies to prevent increasing exposures in this area in the future.

Comment noted. No modification recommended at this time. Effectively addressing this comment occurs at time of the updates to the citywide zoning map and the development standards.

Protecting residents from exposure to potential sources of pollution from proximity to circulation routes and roadways is one of several important criteria used in establishing General Plan land use district boundaries. As reflected in the draft General Plan Land Use Diagram, modifications have been made to land use designations to move future residential development away from I-5 where feasible. Due to existing development patterns, and the need to balance sometimes conflicting community development goals, it is not possible to fully eliminate such potential exposures at the General Plan planning stage.

General Plan goals and polices will necessitate substantial modification of the current zoning codes and standards for implementation of these General Plan goals and policies.

Land Use Policies LU-1.3, 1.6, 1.10, and Implementation measure LU-1.7, as well as Policy HS-9.3 (Air Quality), require consideration of land use compatibility, and adoption of appropriate development standards and zoning criteria to "…prevent the overconcentration of land uses in any area of the City where land use intensities, commercial or industrial operations, or increased traffic would adversely impact the safety, health, and quality of life of residents." City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 4
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response A-4 Housing
Element
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

3.4 New Construction narrative: Add language about importance of smoke-free housing in protecting resident’s health, ensuring options for smokefree housing, and reducing costs for owners.

Comment noted. No modification recommended at this time.

A-5 Housing
Element
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Add to smokefree housing to the Housing narrative, policy and/or implementation sections.

Comment noted. No modification recommended at this time.

A-6 Housing
Element
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal HE-7: Example: Add policy or implementation strategy related to:

Encourage (or require) new multi-family housing developments to include smoke-free policies to limit residents’ exposure to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

1. Shasta County HHSA – Public Health’s Tobacco Program can provide support and model policy.

2. Objective: Provide healthy housing options, protect multi-family housing resident’s health, reduce insurance and maintenance costs for owners of multi-family housing complexes.

Comment noted. No modification recommended at this time.

The 6th Cycle (2020-2028) update of the Housing Element was completed and adopted in August 2020, and modification or update of the Element is occurring at this time. Comments should be resubmitted at the time the next update to the Element is considered. Projected 2026-2027 A-7 Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Pg 4-1 Circulation: State that circulation is about transportation. Comment A-7. Recommend modification to Circulation Element Title page to read as follows:
"CIRCULATION - focuses on moving people, vehicles, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communication within the City of Shasta Lake. Creating connected, accessible, and complete systems of infrastructure networks and ensuring access to opportunities and transportation systems within a community and region requires coordination between land use and circulation planning

A-8 Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

Page 4 ends

protection from the roadway’. Revise to “protection from motor vehicles.” Comment A.8: Recommend modification to Circulation Element text as shown below:

Figure 4-6 illustrates levels of comfort for users of the various bikeway classification levels.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 5
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response Design guidance for bicycle facilities is generally provided by Chapter 8 " Nonmotorized Transportation" of the California Streets and Highways Code. It includes definitions and design recommendations for shared roadways, bike routes, bike lanes, and separated bikeways (Class I-IV). Bikeways may include both shared (with vehicles) and separated facilities.

A-9 Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Pg. 4-16 "Consider addition of providing facilities that make it safe and inviting to walk or bike close to home, and safe connections from neighborhoods to trailheads, and linking on-street bicycle facilities to recreational trails." Comment A-9 noted, no change recommended.

Mobility for all travel modes is recognized as an integral design element of the transportation system throughout the General Plan. The following goals and policies address this request: Circulation Goal CIR-1, and Policies CIR 1.2, 1.6,

1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and Implementation CIR 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.

A10Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

Page 4 ends

hit by vehicles traveling at different speeds. And resulting need for safe speeds in neighborhoods and in bike/ped areas; and better protection like off street trails in areas with high traffic speeds/volumes. I can provide a source / sample.

Comment A-10 noted, no change recommended.

The Plan addresses this topic in multiple locations including Figure 4-6 on Pg. 4-17, and in Section 4.7 "Addressing Tradeoff in Transportation Planning" on Pg. 4-18. Circulation Goal CIR-1, and Policies CIR 1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, and Implementation CIR 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3., address this topic directly or indirectly.

In addition, text on pg. 4.16 reflects the Plan's acknowledgement of the local commitment to address the need for safety and continued education for all transportation system users (see below):
"Other important aspects of encouraging and growing an active transportation community include:

▪ Public education. Incentive programs, like employee transportation education and incentives, bike-friendly businesses, community events, and bike valet programs, may be effective methods that the City can explore in coordination with SRTA, local nonprofits, and active transportation advocacy groups. ▪ Safety concerns and perceptions. Education and awareness can help reduce safety concerns and perceptions. A large percentage of crashes can be avoided if motorists and bicyclists follow the rules of the road and watch out for each other.

The City will continue to identify programs and projects to increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians in the community. "
A11 Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Circulation-3 policy or implementation addition:

1. Consider adding implementation strategy to increase the ratio of miles of bikeways/sidewalks/trails relative to motor vehicle street miles (expansion of bikeways/sidewalks/trails should be more rapid than the expansion of Comment A-11 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Circulation Element text and Goals CIR-1, CIR-2, and CIR-3, and the 43 related policies and implementation measures address this topic both directly and indirectly. The goals, policies, and implementation measures reflect a City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 6
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response roads; include bike/pedestrian facilities in all new roadway projects and rehab projects to prevent backsliding on this metric).
transportation planning approach that requires that equal consideration be given to pedestrian, bicyclist, transit and other non-motorized transportation needs within the design of transportation projects and new development.

Establishing a mandatory ratio of miles of bikeways/sidewalks/trails construction relative to motor vehicle street miles would require an understanding of the extent, location and unique needs of future development projects that is currently unavailable, and is beyond the scope of the General Plan.

A12Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Circulation-3 policy or implementation addition:

2. Consider adding policy to always consider (or require) improvements for non-motorized travel every time there is a street expansion, widening, overlay, striping, or construction. Strategies can include narrowing vehicle lanes to allow for sider bike lane, removing a center turn lane to allow bikeway within existing width, using a wider strip when restriping between a motor vehicle lane and bikeway, increasing the visibility of crosswalks, narrowing turning radii, and narrowing crossing distances.

Comment A-12 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Circulation Goals CIR-1, CIR-2, and CIR-3 and the 43 related policies and implementation measures address this topic both directly and indirectly.
• GOAL CIR-2: Increase options and services for walking and bicycling while improving safety for all modes of transportation. (Source: Existing Objective C-2, modified) • POLICY CIR-2.3: Design intersections and public rights-of-way to include accessible, safe access for all users. (Source: New)
• POLICY CIR-2.4: Design sidewalks and pedestrian paths to provide sufficient space from vehicular traffic and adequate sight lines between adjoining development to ensure safety and security, as practicable. (Source:

New)
• IMPLEMENTATION-CIR-3.5 Construct, improve, and maintain the system of curb, gutters, sidewalks, and crosswalks for pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety and drainage control, prioritizing high traffic areas. (Source: New)
Other goals and policies adequately address this request as well (see also Implementation CIR 3.1, 3.3, 3.6).

A13Circulation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal Cir-2 Talks about safety for all users, but doesn’t say much about how the most vulnerable users (bicyclists, pedestrians) will be protected. Traffic calming, decreased / safe speeds should be a priority.

Comment A-13 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Safety of all users of the transportation system is an integral part of the text, goals and policies of the Plan, as well as a requirement at the time of design of all transportation projects (See Response to comment A-10). Specifically:
• GOAL CIR-2: Increase options and services for walking and bicycling while improving safety for all modes of transportation. (Source: Existing Objective C-2, modified) • POLICY CIR-2.3: Design intersections and public rights-of-way to include accessible, safe access for all users. (Source: New)
• POLICY CIR-2.4: Design sidewalks and pedestrian paths to provide sufficient space from vehicular traffic and adequate sight lines between adjoining development to ensure safety and security, as practicable. (Source:

New)
City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 7
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response • POLICY CIR-3.8: Where feasible and appropriate, and where non-motorized travel is reasonably expected, the width of existing streets should be reduced through bulb outs, medians, pedestrian islands and similar methods, and planting shade trees in landscaped areas within and adjacent to streets while not jeopardizing emergency response and future capacity requirements. (Source: New) • IMPLEMENTATION-CIR-3.5 Construct, improve, and maintain the system of curb, gutters, sidewalks, and crosswalks for pedestrian and bicycle circulation safety and drainage control, prioritizing high traffic areas. (Source: New)
Other goals and policies also address this request as well (see also Implementation-CIR 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6).

A14 Conservation Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal Con-1: Add promotion or requirements for low-water, drought tolerant landscaping.

Comment A-14 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Conservation Element Section 5.2.4 (pg. 5-13) addresses this topic. State law and local ordinance mandate low water use, and drought tolerant landscaping be used for new development. Goal CON-1 and CON-4 and related policies and implementation measures address this topic, as well as:

IMPLEMENTATION-CON-4.2 Encourage the highest feasible water conservation possible when reviewing landscaping plans for new projects and ensure the landscape watering ordinance contains best practices for water conservation. (Source: New)
A15 Open Space Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Implementation OS-1.4: Confusing, needs clarification. Refers to 5 acres of parks per 1,000 new residents then says .9 acres per 1,000 new residents. Is the difference that the first casts a wider net (parks plus habitat protection, etc.) whereas the second only includes developed parks?
Comment A-15 noted, no change recommended.
• Implementation OS 1.4 Seek to provide five acres of parks to meet neighborhood, community, and habitat protection needs per 1,000 new residents, based on commonly used state or national standards. Strive to maintain a neighborhood park standard of at least 0.9 acres per 1,000 new residents. (Source: Existing Implementation OSR-1, modified).

The 5-acres reflects the broader goal to expand total park and recreation open-space acreage citywide through a variety of means including land donations, project dedication requirements, use of grant funding, and other related efforts.

This Policy language… “Strive to maintain a neighborhood park standard of at least 0.9 acres per 1,000 new residents”… reflects the mandatory park land dedication requirement established pursuant to the Quimby Act and local ordinance, and a focused effort specifically addressing neighborhood needs.

A16 Public Safety
and
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Great having a Community Health and Wellness section! And nice to see the strategies related to access to healthy food, strong local food system, fostering healthy lifestyles, walkable neighborhoods, complete streets, CPTED, etc.

Comment A-16 noted, no response required.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 8
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response Community
Health
A17 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Public Safety & Community Health Title page (pg. 3-23): Add ‘foster’ or ‘improve’ in front on ‘overall community health’.

Comment A-17 noted, the following change is recommended to the title page of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

PUBLIC SAFETY & COMMUNITY HEALTH reduces risk of public harm, property damage, and economic impacts from natural hazards, identifies public safety and emergency evacuation measures, and fosters overall community health.

A18 Public Safety
and
Community
Health (and
Local Hazard
Mitigation
Plan)
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Section 7.3.1.2 (pg. 7-16) Wildfire Protection Responsibility: Talks about the responsibility of government agencies. Consider adding reference to the responsibilities of private property owners to also play a part in decreasing fuel loads, hardening their home and structures to be fire resistant, and maintaining defensible space.

Comment A-18 noted, no change required at this time.

State building and planning codes and the adopted the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) address the commenters request, and require compliance property owner participation in the implementation of wildfire safety efforts. The LHMP is an important part of the Public Safety and Community Health Element.

The City of Shasta Lake (“City”) adopted the LHMP in May 2022, and it provides guidance to city officials, partner agencies, and the public in protecting people and property within the city from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. The mitigation strategies (LHMP Table 5-6) presented in this plan respond to the wildfire vulnerabilities within the community and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. (Also see 2022 Shasta Lake Wildfire Information and Preparedness Guide). The PS&CH Element GOAL HS-3, and related policies and implementation measures address this topic specifically (see Implementation HS3.7, pg. 7-69) A19 Public Safety
and
Community
Health (and
Local Hazard
Mitigation
Plan)
- (attach to
Gen. Plan)
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

Page 7 ends

and adopting CalFire home construction recommendations in high fire risk zones.

Comment A-19 noted, no change recommended at this time. (See response to Comment A-18) A20Public Safety
and
Community
Health and
Local Hazard
Mitigation
Plan
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4 Community health and wellness – great section to include! Consider adding references to:

1. Physical activity positively impacting both physical and mental well-being.

Comment A-20 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Text addressing this topic is reflected in Section 7.4.2 “Access to Healthy Lifestyle.” The opening paragraph states (pg. 7-43):

There are many health benefits associated with regular physical activity, especially when part of recreational or social activities. These benefits include reduced risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, some cancers, and City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 9
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response -
(attachment
to Gen. Plan)
premature death. (Cohen, et al., 2006) There are also documented emotional benefits to physical activity, such as stress reduction and improved mood, and in addition to being venues for recreation and exercise, parks and open green spaces provide mental health benefits by providing contact with nature.

A21 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4 Community health and wellness – great section to include! Consider adding references to:

2. Benefits of social connection and decreasing isolation to foster health and well-being.

Comment A-21 noted, no change recommended at this time.

See Section 7.4.2 “Access to Healthy Lifestyle” (pg. 7-43 through 7-44) and Section 7.4.1.3 “An Age Friendly Community” (pg. 7-39). See also GOAL HS-7 and related policies and measures.

A22Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4 Community health and wellness – great section to include! Consider adding references to:

3. Shasta County has high rates of Adverse Childhood Exposures (ACEs), the adverse exposures in childhood, such as abuse, that can continue to negatively impact individuals as adults. Communities can strive to support people in overcoming the impact ACEs have in their lives, reduce intergenerational ACEs, and step up to protect children from ACEs.

Comment A-22 noted, no change recommended at this time.

Adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood (0-17 years). For example:
• experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect
• witnessing violence in the home or community
• having a family member attempt or die by suicide
Also included are aspects of the child’s environment that can undermine their sense of safety, stability, and bonding, such as growing up in a household with:
• substance use problems
• mental health problems
• instability due to parental separation or household members being in jail or prison.

Creating and sustaining safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments for all children and families can prevent ACEs and help all children reach their full potential. Addressing the built environment causes that contribute to ACEs is reflected in the discussion, goals, policies and implementation measures of the Housing Element, the Public Safety and Community Health Element, and other elements of the Plan. Direct policy and regulatory actions to respond to the societal problems that result in ACEs requires public services and direction well beyond the scope of the General Plan and city government responsibilities.

A23Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4.1 Access to Healthy Foods and Adequate Services: Concepts to add to narrative:
1) Add: “Equally important, higher density of the number of tobacco retailers near schools and youth populated areas, have been associated with higher rates of smoking among youth, higher rates of cigarettes smoked per day, and lower rates of successful cessation.” (Citation: Ackerman, A., Etow, A., Bartel, S., & Comment A-23 is noted, the following change is recommended under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Add New IMPLEMENTATION-HS-7.9: Discourage or restrict the location of sources of harmful or addictive substances near schools, youth centers, and other similar facilities, potentially through policy or regulatory changes consistent with the Land Use Element. Sources of such substances may include tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis retailers among others. (Source: New)
City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 10
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response Ribisl, K. M. (2017). Reducing the Density and Number of Tobacco Retailers:

Policy Solutions and Legal Issues. Nicotine & tobacco research: official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 19(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntw124)
Responsibility: City Development Services Department and SCHHSA Time Frame: 1-5 years
Funding Source: General fund (staff)
A24Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4.1 Access to Healthy Foods and Adequate Services: Concepts to add to narrative:
2) Importance of access to tobacco cessation services and programs/strategies to prevent youth from using tobacco, alcohol and other drugs….and help those who are using to quit.

Comment A-24 is noted, the following change is recommended under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Add the following phrase to paragraph 2, page 7-38:

Along this stretch of Shasta Dam Boulevard, between Interstate 5 and the Union Pacific Railroad underpass, there are two health care clinics, two dental service providers, two vision service providers, and one mental health counseling service, and one substance abuse treatment provider.

Add the following sentence to paragraph 3, page 7-38:

Additional substance abuse (or substance use disorder) treatment facilities are located to the south in the City of Redding. These facilities offer resources and services to assist residents in cessation and recovery for abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful or addictive substances.

Update IMPLEMENTATION HS-7.5: Support the development and continuation of high-quality health care services, including services for vision, dental, and mental health, and substance abuse care, and promote connectivity to those services through transit and active transportation options, consistent with the Circulation and Land Use Elements.

Figure 7-18 (page 7-37) is also updated with the location of the SCHC treatment facility A25 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4.1 Access to Healthy Foods and Adequate Services: Concepts to add to narrative:
3) Ensure residents have access to affordable, high-quality, culturally relevant, linguistically, geographically, and age-appropriate treatment services (including tobacco cessation resources, substance use disorder treatment, and mental health services) that reflect the needs of the population and drug abuse trends.

Comment A-25 is noted, the following change is recommended under Goal HS-7 of the Public Safety and Community Development Element.

Update POLICY HS-7.5: Encourage the co-location and accessibility of health care services, including for vision, dental, and mental health, and substance abuse care.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 11
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response A26 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4.1 Access to Healthy Foods and Adequate Services: Concepts to add to narrative:
4) Enhance Youth Tobacco and Drug Use Prevention Programs. Increase prevention programs to discourage tobacco addiction among youth and 18- to 24-year-olds, the fastest-growing group of smokers in California Comment A-26 noted, no change recommended at this time.

This recommendation could obligate the City to develop and fund public health programs. Direct policy and regulatory actions to respond to the societal problems that result in smoking cessation programs requires public services and direction beyond the scope of the General Plan and current city government responsibilities.

A27Public Safety
and
Community
Health

7.4.1.3: Great that age friendly considerations are included. Pg. 7-42:

1. Consider adding policy or implementation strategies related to the inclusion of features that foster ‘aging in place’ when constructing house (wide doorways, lack of stairs, grab bars in bathrooms, low threshold showers, etc.). And to encourage features that allow people to ‘age in place’ in a wide variety of housing options that could provide inexpensive housing for single individuals, such as in-law quarters / ADUs, studio apartments, etc.

Comment A-27 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The text and policy language of the Plan address these topics comprehensively. See PS&CH Element discussion - Section 7.4.1.3 “Age Friendly Community” pgs. 7-39 through 7-42; and Community Health and Wellness goals and policies pg. 7-76 through 7-78. Among the specific policies and measures addressing this are:
• POLICY HS-7.4 Promote an age-friendly community that serves residents at all stages of life. (Source: New) • POLICY-HS-7.6 Explore opportunities for community collaboration and the efficient use of limited resources to improve access and services for the community’s seniors and children. (Source: New) • IMPLEMENTATION-HS-7.1 Collaborate with Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (SCHHSA) to help identify funding sources to facilitate improved access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods, comprehensive health care services, nutrition programs, childcare, and supportive services, especially for disadvantaged populations. (Source: New)
Also see Housing Element, including pgs. 3-22 and 23; Land Use Element Goal LU-4 and related policies and measures, pgs. 2-57 and 2-58.

A28 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health

7.4.1.3: Great that age friendly considerations are included. Pg. 7-42:

2. Encourage multi-family housing with individual bedroom/bathrooms but shared common spaces (kitchen, libraries, living rooms) to decrease isolation.

Comment A-28 noted, no change recommended at this time.

General Plan goals and policies address the topic of aging in place both broadly and specifically, including maintaining good mental and physical health for residents. General Plan land use and housing polices encourage flexibility in housing type and design, which would allow this type of development to occur. Additional specificity can appropriately be provided with the comprehensive update to the zoning code and development standards, which will follow Plan adoption.

A29 Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal HS-2 (minimize risk…from natural disasters) OR in circulation:

Incorporate policy or implementation strategies that encourage a grid style street network, decrease cul-de-sacs or dead-ends, and/or increase the number of egress routes in all neighborhoods. This is not only important for emergency evacuation and emergency response coming into areas, it can also decrease Comment A-29 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The General Plan emphasizes walking and bicycling through a multi-pronged strategy that fosters pedestrian-oriented development, a compact form, and new pedestrian and bicycle connections. The Land Use, Circulation, and Public Safety Elements tie together the relationship between public safety, land use, and reducing vehicle use. They also address community circulation and use of “complete street” designs. (see Land Use and Circulation Elements). Plan City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 12
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response motor vehicle miles traveled and improve walkability and bike-friendliness by decreasing travel distances.
goals and policies addressing this topic of community design and emergency access are spread throughout the Plan.

Specifically applicable examples include:
• POLICY LU-3.1 Where practical, promote mixed-use development patterns and higher densities that use land and resources efficiently, reduce automobile dependence and pollution, and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use. (Source: New)
• IMPLEMENTATION LU-3.4 Discourage development without a coordinated plan for land use or that is incompatible with adjacent residential areas, circulation limitations, available infrastructure capacity, or public service needs. (Source: New)
• POLICY CIR 1.7 Encourage connectivity and accessibility to a mix of land uses that meet residents' daily needs within walking distance, consistent with the Land Use Element. (Source: New) • LHMP Mitigation No. ma-WF-SL-16: Assess emergency access routes for multiple egress options and adequate turn arounds and infrastructure; maintain and improve wildfire emergency access where needed.

A30Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal HS-7: Language is fine how it is. Suggestion: Create and maintain a community with equitable access to healthy foods, physical activity opportunities, care services, social connections, and other factors that foster positive community health outcomes.

1. Add a policy: Explore opportunities to prevent youth from using tobacco, alcohol and other drugs and partner with organizations to ensure the healthy development of youth.

Comment A-30 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The General Plan includes many goals and policies addressing community health. The City supports and partners with all efforts to reduce problem drug and alcohol use. However, the City organizational structure and limited resources dictate that this effort is best handled via the Shasta County HHS Agency, and specialized service providers.

A31Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Goal HS-7: Language is fine how it is. Suggestion: Create and maintain a community with equitable access to healthy foods, physical activity opportunities, care services, social connections, and other factors that foster positive community health outcomes.

2. Add implementation strategy: Improve City of Shasta Lake’s score on the Getting it Right from the Start Scorecard, with an emphasis on strategies to protect youth from early use of cannabis.
https://gettingitrightfromthestart.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/ShastaLake2021.pdf Comment A-31 noted, no staff recommendation at this time.

Getting it Right from the Start, a project of the Public Health Institute, works with states, cities, counties and community partners to develop evidence-based model policies and provide guidance on cannabis policies that can help protect against youth cannabis use, while advancing social equity.

The “Getting it Right from the Start Project” generates scorecards evaluating policies passed by cities and counties that allow cannabis sales. Based on a 100-point scale and three years of data, the scorecards measure 27 storefrontspecific and 24 delivery-specific local policies across six categories: retailer requirements, taxes and prices, product limits, marketing, smoke-free air, and equity and conflicts of interest.

The City does not currently participate in this program.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 13
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response A32Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Implementation HS-7.6: Expand to include development community in increasing construction practices that foster aging in place (not just programmatic / service provider side).

Comment A-32 noted, recommended modification.

IMPLEMENTATION-HS-7.6 Evaluate existing supportive service programs and promote new programs that increase the capacity for aging-in-place through active engagement with the senior community. Work with the development community to identify and encourage new housing designs that will support aging-in-place. (Source: New) A33Public Safety
and
Community
Health
Shasta County
HHSA – Public
Health
Implementation HS-7.8: Also include filling sidewalk gaps and shortening crossing distances at wide / high speed intersections.

Comment A-33 noted, no change recommended at this time.

See response to Comment A-13.

Public Comments (P#) Draft Land Use Designations referenced below include: UR=Urban Residential; C=Commercial; IL=Industrial Light; C-VMU=Village Mixed Use; P1 Land Use Kathy Ogilvie Requested clarification on proposed land use change of the eastern portion of the property from Urban Residential (UR) to Commercial (C) in draft GP Land Use Diagram. APN 075-120-017
Comment P1 noted, no change requested or recommended this time.

P2 Land Use Jon Dallegge Requested clarification on proposed land use change of the property from Urban Residential (UR) to Industrial Light (IL) in draft GP Land Use Diagram. APN 007-190-004
Comment P2 noted, no change requested or recommended at this time.

P3 Land Use Cindy Hageman Requested clarification on proposed land use change of the property from UR to C in draft GP Land Use Diagram. APN 007-120-009
Comment P3 noted, no change requested or recommended at this time.

P4 Land Use Jared Ennis Requested clarification on proposed land use change of property from C to UR in draft GP Land Use Diagram. Requested to maintain commercial land use in draft GP Land Use Diagram. APN 006-470-008
Comment P4 noted, recommended modification: Do not change parcels 006-470-008 and 006-470-007 to Urban Residential, retain commercial designation. Change from current commercial designation to Village Mixed Use, to match adjacent VMU designations. Due to Lake Blvd. traffic volumes, traffic speeds and road noise issues the property would not provide a suitable location for new residential construction. The properties front directly onto Lake Blvd., are of a unique shape and relatively small size, which could make residential development challenging.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 14
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response P5 Land Use Mark Smith Requested that parcel remain UR rather than be changed to IL as reflected in the draft General Plan. APN 007-190-006
Comment P5 noted, no change recommended at this time. Retain draft land use designations.

The draft GP recommended land use change is necessary to remove sensitive receptors from noise and air quality impacts generated by proximity to Interstate 5. As reflected in the Plan and the related EIR, the property will be subject to negative noise and air quality levels generated by traffic on I-5 and Cascade Blvd. The California Air Resources Board recommends siting sensitive land uses (residential uses) at least 500 feet, and preferably 1000 ft from the freeway. The property boundary is approximately 240 ft. from I-5 and is located within the 70 DB noise contour. State law stipulates the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for residential uses is 65 DB.

As identified below, Draft General Plan land use policies reflect the need to reduce health and safety impacts to sensitive land uses () where possible. Retaining the proposed “Industrial – Light” (IL) land use designation would be consistent with the following policies:

POLICY-LU-3.19 Limit residential development and require adequate setbacks or other physical improvements for development next to Interstate 5 to reduce public health impacts from interstate traffic, such as noise and air pollution. (Source: New)
LU POLICY-LU-1.3 Evaluate zoning proposals to prevent the overconcentration of land uses in any area of the City where land use intensities, commercial or industrial operations, or increased traffic would adversely impact the safety, health, and quality of life of residents. (Source: New).

POLICY-LU-2.7 Promote the development of attractive industrial areas and a broad range of industrial uses that can provide jobs to residents. (Source: Existing Policies LU-k, LU-m, modified) City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 15
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response POLICY-LU-1.16 Consider vegetation management and landscaping projects that can reduce the heat island effect and reduce pollutant transport and dispersion on high traffic roads, such as Shasta Dam Boulevard and frontage roads along the Interstate 5 corridor (Cascade Boulevard and Twin View Boulevard). Collaborate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to improve the landscaping in this area. (Source: New) IMPLEMENTATION-LU-1.7 Establish zoning districts and quality development standards consistent with general plan goals and policies, and amend the city’s zoning map in a timely manner to be consistent with the General Plan. (Source: Existing Implementation LU-1, modified)
POLICY-HS-8.2 Protect noise-sensitive uses and areas from significant sources of noise, including from transportation and stationary noise-generating uses.

IMPLEMENTATION-HS-8.1 Buffer noise-sensitive uses and areas adjacent to existing and new sources of noise, such as Interstate 5 and industrial areas and uses, through the implementation of various methods, including but not limited to:
- Establishing land use compatibility standards;
- Enforcement of noise standards;
- Insulating or buffering residences exposed to excessive levels of noise; - Minimizing traffic noise through responsive site design techniques and physical barriers; and - Regulating new development to limit noise impacts through site and building design and operational conditions.

P6 Land Use Christian Young Adjacent property owner to parcel 005-130-081 requested a change in the land use from Commercial-Village Mixed-Use (VMU) to Urban Residential (UR).

Comment P6 noted, recommended modification: Should the land use designation be modified from VMU to UR in the draft Land Use Diagram? Changing the subject parcel from VMU to UR should be reviewed with the property owner prior to a final change being adopted.

Current zoning on the property is R-4, Multiple Family Residential. Due to topographic constraints and the grading required to gain access from Shasta Dam Blvd., access to the property will be gained from Front Street. All properties which access Front Street are currently designated as Urban Residential, and many are developed with single-family homes. There is no other commercially designated property which accesses Front Street within 850 feet of the property.

Introducing commercial activity and traffic to a developed residential street should be avoided if possible to avoid potential use conflicts. Consideration should be given to modifying the land use boundary to designate the property as “Urban Residential” (UR). Allowable densities for Urban Residential are 6-12 DU/Acre.

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 16
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response The property is currently designated as “Commercial” in the 1999 General Plan, with R-4 zoning. It is proposed as “Village Mixed Use” in the draft 2040 Plan. The VMU District would allow a wide range of uses, including residential, as described below:
“Village Mixed‐Use serves as primary nodes of both pedestrian and automobile activity that encourage a mix of commercial and residential uses with a full range of City services… Although accessed via public roads, mixed-use development is pedestrian-oriented and can include a combination of residential, office, and commercial in the same building or within close proximity of each other. Allowed residential densities range from 6-30 DU/Acre, and the maximum allowed FAR for Mixed-Use is 3.0.”
P7 Land Use,
Conservation
And
Open Space
Elements
Pat Lind “I attended the scoping meeting but never heard back about any of the ideas that citizens had. We mentioned a creek management plan and oak woodland designation and protection and neither were shown or commented on.

I took a picture of the white board during the scoping meeting when it was written down Please let me know how to proceed with this.” Comment P7 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The comment may be referencing the General Plan scoping meetings which occurred prior to publishing of the draft General Plan (see Draft GP pgs. 1-15, 1-20). Several in-person and virtual workshops and open houses were held to help identify common themes and visions for the GP Update, to gather ideas on key planning issues, and discuss alternatives, concepts, and policy frameworks. This input was refined into “Vision Statements” which guided development of the Plan. If an idea, policy, or objective would help advance the vision it was included in the plan.

The goals, policies and measures of the General Plan provide the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, including development-related programs and natural resource management programs. “Creek management plans and oak woodland designations and protection” are specific implementation actions that can be implemented by the City Council, and are supported by the goals and polices identified below.

The draft General Plan now also includes establishment of a Natural Resource Overlay Zone. This zone provides for the protection of significant habitat and natural resources at the time citywide zoning occurs following General Plan adoption. These areas can be important for maintaining natural local ecosystems, such as floodplains, mineral resource areas, riparian areas, creek corridors, and other sensitive habitats. Vegetation management within the City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 17
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response Natural Resource Overlay zone is also important for fire fuel reduction, fire safety protection, and invasive species management, which are addressed in detail in the Safety, Conservation, and Open Space Elements.

The following goals, policies speak to the commenters request:

POLICY-LU-1.5 At a minimum, the General Plan land use diagram will contain Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Open Space, Natural Resource, Parks, and Public Facilities land use categories, each of which is described in the Table 1-2 Land Use Classification Descriptions. These land use categories will be implemented through specific zoning districts and the related development standards. (Source: New)
IMPLEMENTATION-LU-1.7 Establish zoning districts and quality development standards consistent with general plan goals and policies, and amend the city’s zoning map in a timely manner to be consistent with the General Plan. (Source: Existing Implementation LU-1, modified)
POLICY-LU-3.10 Work to protect important natural resource areas and the scenic beauty of mountains and rolling hills around the City as the community develops. For new development located along existing creeks and streams, incorporate bank naturalizing approaches for channeled sections as a means of creek and stream restoration where appropriate. (Source: New)
IMPLEMENTATION-LU-3.5 Evaluate the zoning ordinance for possible updates to the Habitat Protection and Open Space districts to ensure development is consistent with natural resource protection goals in the General Plan. (Source:

New)
POLICY-CON-1.2 Protect existing wetlands to the greatest extent possible, consistent with achieving the vision expressed in the General Plan. (Source: New)
GOAL CON-3 Conserve and manage significant fish, wildlife, and vegetation resources, enhance the area’s natural beauty, and provide residents with a healthy environment. (Source: Existing Objective FW-1, plus new) POLICY-CON-3.1 Establish or evaluate existing regulations and development standards to conserve and manage natural resources, including provisions for clustering of development, access to open space, drainage corridors, hillside slopes, waiver of minimum lot width requirements, narrower local street widths, and other techniques to enhance protection of sensitive habitats and resources. (Source: Existing Objective FW-2, Policy Fw-a, and Implementation FW6, modified) POLICY-CON-3.3 Use riparian and wetland buffers (non-development setbacks) to preserve existing riparian vegetation through the environmental review process and require minimum setbacks. Specific setbacks and widths should be determined on a case-by-case basis with input from resource agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Source: Existing Implementation FW-2, modified) City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 18
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response POLICY-CON-3.4 Continue protecting and managing urban forests in the City to enhance beautification and conservation efforts to the greatest extent possible, in particular by: - Maintaining existing City trees with regular scheduled service. - Planting new trees to replace ones that were removed and extending tree canopies where possible. - Requiring tree plantings in new developments on streets and in parking areas. - Working with commercial parking lot owners to enhance tree canopies. - Using volunteer groups and property owners to enhance tree canopies. (Source:

New)
IMPLEMENTATION-CON-3.5 Work with stakeholders to identify priority conservation areas in the City and establish appropriate protection measures for these resources and habitats. (Source: New) P8 Land Use,
Conservation
And
Open Space
Elements
Pat Lind (Online comments on General Plan review pdf)

“Sensitive habitat definition. The City declares the following to be ESHAs within the Planning Area: 1. Rivers,creeks, 2.Wetlands, estuaries, and associated riparian habitats Sensitive habitat buffer requirements. A setback separating all permitted development from adjacent sensitive habitat areas shall be required.

The purpose of such setbacks shallbe to prevent any degradation of the ecological functions provided by the habitat area as a result of the development.

The following shall apply to such setbacks: 1. The minimum width of all other habitat setbacks shall be 100 feet, unless the designated setback would eliminate all reasonable use of the property. 2. A definition and map of sensitive habitat will be maintained by the City Habitat integration for ecological integrity and development of a protected habitat corridor system. An ecological connection network plan for linking native habitats in the Planning Area, and all of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas identified in this Plan, shall be prepared. The network shall incorporate all existing large areas (or "nodes") of habitat for fish and wildlife species (such as wetlands and forests) and "linkages" or"corridors" of natural habitat (such as stream zones) for migration and species movement. The plan will link large "nodes" of natural habitat together with the “linkage” connections as a functioning ecological network. Nodes and linkages shall include a "core" of naturalecosystem elements and shall provide a protected "buffer" along theouter margins of the core habitat which shall function to protect theecological values in the "core" habitat.“ Comment P8 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The goals, policies and measures of the General Plan provide the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementation programs and measures, including natural resource related programs and natural resource protection standards. The comments request the addition of multiple specific implementation actions, which are addressed in the draft Plan as circulated. Such specific measures are typically addressed with adoption of an updated Development Code or other General Plan implementation action following adoption of the Plan, or in response to specific development project impacts. The requested measures are addressed by the draft goals and polices identified above in Response P7 and in response to comments below, and/or could be implemented should the Draft Plan be adopted as circulated.

A Natural Resource Overlay has been identified in the draft General Plan Land Use Element to protect sensitive habitats and potentially hazardous areas from development, including areas with slopes greater than 20 percent, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones, and designated wetlands, river and stream corridors and surrounding wetlands to support protections for wildlife habitat and for water quality functions, such as pollutant removal, floodwater reduction, and greenhouse gas reduction. Regulating development in these areas is envisioned by the draft Plan goals and policies in order to balance these resources with appropriate development practices.

The Plan recognizes that the undeveloped foothills and forest resources are some of the City’s defining physical characteristics and open space resources. Goals, policies, and measures have been included in the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements to protect these resource from negative development impacts. Proper maintenance and mitigation on open space within the City is also critical for wildfire protection. Section 6.5 of the Plan discusses open space for public health and safety benefits in more detail. In addition to the policies identified in response to comment P7, specific policies and measures in the draft Plan which address the request include:

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 19
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response POLICY-OS-1.1 Seek to protect riparian habitat along significant creek corridors. The following measures are identified to provide the riparian habitat protection: Regulation of vegetation removal, Design of grading and road construction, Establishment of a development setback, and Siting of structures, including clustering. (Source: Existing Policy OSR-b) POLICY-OS-1.4 Preserve open space along creeks and hillsides to maintain biological, scenic, and recreational resources in future development. (Source: New)
IMPLEMENTATION-OS-2.4 Evaluate and implement, where feasible, linking natural habitat areas with interconnecting open space corridors, particularly those which provide animals and wildlife with access to drinking water and enhance biological diversity of the area. (Source: Existing Implementation FW-8) IMPLEMENTATION-OS-2.5 Evaluate the establishment of a conservation trust for the acquisition and maintenance of natural habitat areas to ensure permanent protection. Evaluate using grants, rather than tax revenues, to achieve this. (Source: Existing Implementation FW-9, modified)
P9 Land Use,
Conservation
Open Space
And
Public Safety
Elements
Pat Lind “Overview of Shasta Lake’s watercourses, riparian zones and wetlands. Shasta Lake’s nine named creeks and wetlands provide: flood control, freshwater habitat, riparian habitat, scenic enjoyment, water quality, educational opportunities, public safety, fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., fish spawning and migration, wildlife nesting and foraging areas), open space, recreation and groundwater recharge. These creeks also have tributaries with similar feature and functions.

The city will adopt a creek management plan (CMP) and have included creek zone, flood hazard, erosion and sedimentation, vegetation and wildlife, water quality and public awareness / education. The creek management plan should be adopted to address land uses that have significantly altered Shasta Lakes creeks from original condition.

Past land use practices which produced large amounts of sediment, contributing to creek degradation. Alterations also included underground culverts and large culverts above ground which prevent or severely limit access for anadromous fish, as chinook salmon.

Except for small area off twin view blvd for salt creek and some area on churn creek below sewage plant, riparian forests have been completely removed from at least half of each stream channel. Pollutants from a variety of sources (including petroleum products from urban run-off and suspended sediments from soil erosion) degrade the appearance and the biological integrity of the Comment P9 noted, no change to Plan recommended.

Incorporation of the requested language would mandate that the City Council establish and fund a “creek management” program.

The text and policy language of the draft Plan comprehensively address the need to protect environmentally sensitive wetlands, creeks, and habitat areas - see responses to Comments P7 and P8, and Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Elements of the draft Plan. Development and establishment of appropriate zoning classifications and regulatory practices related to creeks and wetlands occurs as part of the effort to amend the development code and complete the comprehensive rezoning of property following adoption of the General Plan. Regulating development to protect environmentally sensitive areas is envisioned by the draft Plan in order to balance protection of natural resources with future development necessary to achieve the vision expressed in the Plan.

The City’s LHMP (a GP attachment) includes mapping of the FEMA-designated floodplains and the identification of the applicable FEMA Flood Insurance Map (FIRM). The Open Space Element includes a natural resource overlay also depicting FEMA-designated floodplains and designated wetlands (OS-Fig 6-1). Creek corridors are reflected in the Plan (See Figure 5-3). A Natural Resource Overlay has been instituted in the City General Plan Land Use Element to protect sensitive habitats and hazardous areas from development, including areas with slopes greater than 20 percent, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones, and designated wetlands.

POLICY-OS-1.1 Seek to protect riparian habitat along significant creek corridors. The following measures are identified to provide the riparian habitat protection:
- Regulation of vegetation removal,
- Design of grading and road construction,
City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 20
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response creeks. The Resource Conservation and Management Element contains overall goals and policies for creek management, which are supported by CMP policies and implementation measures. The CMP provides policy direction for new and modified development along creeks, and for existing activities in creek zones, in order to fully realize the creek’s beneficial uses.

Wetlands provide flood protection, groundwater recharge, water quality treatment, food production and wildlife habitat, which are valued by the community. Wetlands are highly productive, complex ecosystems, seasonally or permanently saturated, and support specially adapted vegetation.” - Establishment of a development setback, and
- Siting of structures, including clustering. (Source: Existing Policy OSR-b) P10 Land Use,
Conservation
And
Open Space
Elements
Pat Lind “Policy creek CONSERVATION
& MANAGEMENT
Objective. Enhance, maintain, and restore the biological integrity of entire steam courses (headwaters to mouth), and their associated riparian habitats, as natural features in the City’s landscape.
• Designation of protected streams. The provisions of this policy shall apply to those streams shown on the Protected Watercourse Map.

These watercourses and their associated riparian areas serve as habitat for fish and wildlife, provide space for the flow of stormwater runoff and flood waters, and furnish open space and recreational areas for city residents.
• Environmental Buffer Area (EBA). A streamside protection area is hereby established along both sides of the streams identified on the City Watercourse Map. The purpose of the EBA is to remain in a natural state in order to protect streams’ ecosystems and their associated riparian habitat areas. The EBA shall include:

1. In areas where existing development, as defined in the Land Use Code, is adjacent to the stream, the EBA shall be not less than 25 feet outward on both sides of the stream, measured from the top of bank.

2. In all other locations within the City, the EBA shall be not less than 100 feet outward on both sides of the stream, measured from the top of bank.

3. In locations within the City having significant areas of riparian vegetation exceeding 100 feet in width measured from the top of bank, the EBA shall be Comment P10 noted, no change recommended.

See responses to Comments P7 through P9, above. The text and policy language of the Plan address these topics comprehensively. The recommendations would establish specific development standards related to environmental buffers and mandatory setbacks from environmentally streams in the General Plan. Development and establishment of appropriate zoning classifications and regulatory practices related to creeks and wetlands occurs will be part of the effort to amend the development code and complete the comprehensive rezoning of property that is required following adoption of the General Plan. The following policy specifically addresses the obligation to establish setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas at the time of update to the Development Code.

POLICY-CON-4.6 Define transition zones between development areas and open space or conservation areas to provide for further conservation of habitat and wildlife areas. (Source: New) IMPLEMENTATION-CON-4.6 Protect and preserve natural resource areas by amending the zoning ordinance to include habitat protection standards, particularly buffering, for sites abutting areas of natural resource value. (Source: Existing Implementation FW-7, modified)
City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 21
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response expanded to encompass all of the riparian vegetation, except in no case shall the EBA exceed 250 feet in width from the top of bank on either side of the stream. “
P11 Pat Lind (Pg 323) Designation of wetland
protection zones. The :WSP Zone shall
be applied to wetlands, wetland setbacks, wetland buffer areas and modified wetland buffer areas, as defined in the City’s Land Use Code, at the time of development review and approval. A wetlands map, maintained by the City, will show the general location of wetlands, riparian corridors, and uplands within the City limits and urban services zone. All development within or adjacent to the areas identified on the map as wetlands or riparian corridors shall comply with City Wetlands Development Standards and shall include the following: 1. A wetland delineation. 2. A mitigation plan for impacted areas. 3. Setback areas from delineated wetlands. 4. Easements for onsite delineated wetlands. 5.

Permitted and protected uses/activities within delineated wetland areas. 6.

Fencing to prevent livestock from degrading wetlands and riparian vegetation.

Comment P11 noted, no change recommended or necessary at this time.

See responses to Comments P7 and P8, above. The text and policy language of the Plan address these topics comprehensively.

P12 Conservation Pat Lind (Pg 351) energy;

1. “Encouragement of appropriate energy alternatives. In the City shall attempt to purchase at least 10% of its electrical energy (in energy units, not cost) from renewable sources within Humboldt County by the year 2020. The City shall take measures to encourage the availability to, and use by, residents of energy suppliers that best meet the objectives of this policy. The City shall convert City vehicle fleets to a mix of fuels that best meets the objectives of this policy.

2. The City shall continuously seek and implement cost-effective steps to reduce City energy use. The City shall attempt to reduce the City’s total consumption of purchased energy by at least 20% (in energy units, not cost) by the year 2030.

3. The City shall adopt the goals of the national “Energy Star Program” (or its successor programs) for all City construction projects and all construction projects assisted by grants for which the City is an applicant. These goals include achieving a minimum of 15% greater Comment P12 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The text and policy language of the Plan address these topics comprehensively. The proposed additions would mandate specific actions and could remove necessary flexibility from future Council determinations on energy efficiency measures and business practices affecting customers and public works construction projects.

1. The City of Shasta Lake Electric Utility currently manages a comprehensive energy and efficiency incentive program for residential & commercial customers focusing on peak load reduction and energy conservation. For residential customers, rebates are offered for the installation of various energy efficiency measures. For commercial customers, rebates are available for upgraded lighting, HVAC equipment, and in cases where an analysis is performed rebates can be offered for additional equipment that reduces energy use and/or demand.

2. It is the City of Shasta Lake's goal to provide access to safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly energy; at the lowest possible cost, consistent with sound business practices, per the direction of the City Council.

The requested additions reflect actions and efforts that are largely already in use by the City electric utility in response to Council directions and state requirements.

Plan policies which address energy and resource conservation include the following:

City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 22
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response energy efficiency than would a building designed with existing Title 24 standards”
POLICY-CON-4.3 Promote cost-effective water and energy consumption in the City as much as possible; continue and build upon existing programs to reduce water and energy consumptions in the City. (Source: New) IMPLEMENTATION-CON-4.3 Work with the largest users of water and energy in the City to establish incentives, offer recommendations, and explore other programs and policies for lowering consumption. (Source: New) P13 Land Use,
Conservation
And
Open Space
Elements
Pat Lind (Pg 394)
“Creeks Management Plan Regularly update the City Creeks Management Plan, at least every five years, to implement current provisions for maintaining biological integrity of entire watercourses. The Creeks Management Plan will also include updated provisions for education and restoration programs for degraded creeks. Planning department /Creek Advisory Committee Year 1 then every 5 years
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program: Conduct a continuous program to identify and purchase appropriate energy supplies, implement and evaluate energy conservation measures, provide energy education and public information, and promote energy efficiency in transportation. Establish a funding mechanism to assure that a significant portion of the savings are used to fund energy programs and as a reward for savings.
• Development Dept. Year 1 then every 5 years
Non-native Plant and Animal Species Removal Program The City shall provide public information that explains why invasive species are a problem. The City shall maintain a program that recommends effective but non-toxic eradication measures, and eradicates non-native species on public lands where they are displacing native species.
• Developmental Dept./Agricultural Advisory Committee Year 1 then every 5 years “
Comment P13 noted, no change recommended at this time.

The text and policy language of the Plan address these topics comprehensively -see also Response to Comments P7- P13.

The following draft policies address this request:

POLICY-CON-3.1 Establish or evaluate existing regulations and development standards to conserve and manage natural resources, including provisions for clustering of development, access to open space, drainage corridors, hillside slopes, waiver of minimum lot width requirements, narrower local street widths, and other techniques to enhance protection of sensitive habitats and resources. (Source: Existing Objective FW-2, Policy Fw-a, and Implementation FW6, modified) POLICY-CON-3.2 Design or condition new development to avoid significant adverse impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species, as officially designated by federal and state resource agencies. Work with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure the preservation of resident and anadromous fish. (Source:

Existing Policy FW-b, Implementation FW-11, modified)
POLICY-CON-3.3 Use riparian and wetland buffers (non-development setbacks) to preserve existing riparian vegetation through the environmental review process and require minimum setbacks. Specific setbacks and widths should be determined on a case by case basis with input from resource agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Source: Existing Implementation FW-2, modified) POLICY-CON-3.4 Continue protecting and managing urban forests in the City to enhance beautification and conservation efforts to the greatest extent possible, in particular by:
- Maintaining existing City trees with regular scheduled service. - Planting new trees to replace ones that were removed and extending tree canopies where possible. - Requiring tree plantings in new developments on streets and in parking areas. - Working with commercial parking lot owners to enhance tree canopies. - Using volunteer groups and property owners to enhance tree canopies. (Source: New) POLICY-CON-3.5 Encourage the use of locally propagated native plants and trees in public spaces. (Source: New) City of Shasta Lake
2040 General Plan Errata – Planning Commission Review
---
Response to Public and Agency Comments with Recommendations September 2022
pg. 23
ID
#
General Plan
Element(s)
Commenter Request or Comment Recommendation and/or Response POLICY-CON-3.6 Create easements where practical for public access to streams and waterways. (Source: New) POLICY-CON-3.7 Control the spread of invasive plant species and work with private landowners and landscapers to support these efforts. (Source: New)
P14 Pat Lind “In water resources and wildlife our endangered chinook salmon that we found in Salt creek and churncreek last year are not mentioned. DF&W as well as caltrans knows about them. Please include the fish when writing the new general plan”
Comment P14 noted, no modification recommended at this time.

Identification of specific instances of fish and wildlife identification within the planning area is not a requirement for general plans, there is no prohibition to doing so. The text and policy language of the Plan address recognize the value of fish and wildlife resources as comprehensively discussed in Responses to Comments P7-P11, and in addition see below.

POLICY-CON-3.2 Design or condition new development to avoid significant adverse impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species, as officially designated by federal and state resource agencies. Work with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure the preservation of resident and anadromous fish. (Source:

Existing Policy FW-b, Implementation FW-11, modified)
CITY COUNCIL REPORT -NOVEMBER 1, 2022 1
ATTACHMENT B - CEQA PROCESS BACKGROUND ON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BACKGROUND
California Environmental Quality Act – Draft and Final PEIR The City of Shasta Lake, as lead agency, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to provide the public and interested agencies with information about the potential environmental effects that could occur due to implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan and is intended to guide investment, development, and conservation in the City through the year 2040. The PEIR includes information about the 2040 Plan Update (the preferred alternative), and three alternatives to the project including the alternative of retaining the 1999 Plan (without update). The decision to certify the FPEIR as recommended by the Commission, now lies with the City Council.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 15083, public and agency involvement in preparation of the PEIR commenced with the publication of the “Notice of Preparation” of the DPEIR on July 30, 2021. The NOP was circulated to Native American Tribal representatives, state, regional, and local agencies, and interested members of the public for a 30-day public review (i.e., scoping) period. Scoping is used to determine what potential environmental impacts will be studied in the EIR. (See Section 2.0 of Draft PEIR). A public scoping meeting to receive comments from the public and responsible agencies on the content of the DEIR was held on August 9, 2021.

The Draft PEIR was made available to the public and interested agencies for a 45-day public review period on July 25, 2022, and closed on September 8, 2022. Hard copies of the Draft General Plan and the Draft PEIR were provided to the City Council and the Planning Commission for review in July 2022.

Four (4) noticed Planning Commission public meetings to review and accept comment on the Plan and the Draft EIR were held on August 18, September 13, September 22, and October 6, 2022. Notices of the availability of the Plan and EIR were published in the Redding RecordSearchlight (one-eighth page), summitted to OPR, and sent to affected agencies. Individual mailed notices were also sent to 176 individual property owners whose properties were affected by a change in land use designation(s).

As documented in the FPEIR, the Planning Commission determined that no substantial evidence was presented in the comment letters to support a fair argument that adoption and implementation of the 2040 General Plan Update would cause a significant impact on the environment; therefore, no revisions to the DPEIR were necessary in response to the comments received. Detailed responses to all comments are available for review in the administrative record of the project.

Final PEIR, Findings and Determinations - Statement of Overriding Considerations.

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project (adopt the 2040 Plan). If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15093).

CITY COUNCIL REPORT -NOVEMBER 1, 2022 2
ATTACHMENT B - CEQA PROCESS BACKGROUND ON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE As disclosed in the CEQA “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations,” implementation of General Plan 2040 could result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the following areas: Air Quality; Biological Resources; Green House Gases, Climate Change, and Energy; Land Use and Planning; Transportation. The specific facts supporting this position are provided in the exhibits of the CEQA resolution presented for Council consideration.

Given this circumstance, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared for General Plan 2040. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment to FPEIR Certification Resolution) is a written statement explaining the specific reasons why the social, economic, legal, technical, or other beneficial aspects of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and why the City may be willing to accept such impacts.

The statement of overriding considerations acknowledges the significant and unavoidable impacts of the implementation of General Plan 2040 project, but provides findings supporting the position that the 2040 General Plan Update conveys social, legal, economic, technological, and other benefits that outweigh such impacts.

For the reasons documented in the FPEIR, the benefits of adopting the 2040 General Plan include:

1. Increased range of housing opportunities.

2. Increased economic opportunities.

3. Improved transportation system.

4. Improved preservation of natural resources.

5. Addition of climate change goals, policies, and implementation actions (per state law).

6. Addition of community health and wellness goals, policies, and implementation actions.

NOTE:

The content of the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is reflected in Section 7.0, page 14, of the “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan Update (Attached).

CITY OF

SHASTA LAKE

GENERAL
PLAN
2040
FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH# 2021070574
October 2022
Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing

FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070574
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Shasta Lake
4477 Main Street
Shasta Lake, CA 96019
530.275.7400
October 2022
Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing Final Program Environmental Impact Report
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Comments and Responses to Comments on the DPEIR ............................................................. 1

3.0 Revisions to the DPEIR .................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix A. Comments and Responses to Comments on the DPEIR Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 1
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan

1.0 Introduction
This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the City of Shasta Lake’s 2040 General Plan update was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000-§21189) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000-§15387). The State Clearinghouse Number for the project is 2021070574.

The Draft PEIR (DPEIR) 1 was made available to the general public and interested agencies for a 45- day public review period, beginning on July 25, 2022, and ending on September 8, 2022. The DPEIR is incorporated herein by reference in accordance with §15150 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Pursuant to §15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, a final EIR must consist of:
a. The draft EIR or a revision of the draft EIR;
b. Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR; c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that submitted comments on the draft EIR;
d. The lead agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.

2.0 Comments and Responses to Comments on the DPEIR
During the 45-day comment period for the DPEIR, the City received comment letters (emails) from:
 Timothy Hinkson, Sergeant with the California Highway Patrol  Gracious Palmer, City of Shasta Lake citizen
These comment letters are included in Appendix A. Following each comment letter is a response by the City that clarifies information included in the DPEIR and/or refers the reader to the section of the DPEIR where the information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues or the DPEIR are noted.

As documented in Appendix A, no substantial evidence was presented in the comment letters to support a fair argument that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would cause a significant impact on the environment, other than the significant environmental impacts raised in the DPEIR; therefore, no revisions to the DPEIR are required in response to written comments on the DPEIR. 1 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse Number 2021070574). https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021070574/3

Page 2 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan

3.0 Revisions to the DPEIR
This section identifies revisions to the DPEIR that are required to incorporate modifications that were made to the proposed 2040 General Plan following circulation of the DPEIR.

Revisions to the originally proposed land use designations that were identified in the circulated 2040 General Plan and DPEIR were made to incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendations. These revisions are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Revisions to Land Use Designations Shown in the Circulated 2040 General Plan and DPEIR Assessor’s Parcel Number/Location Parcel Size
(Acres)
Originally Proposed
Designation (Draft
Land Use Element)
Revised Land Use
Designation (Proposed
Land Use Element)
005-100-004, -005, -006, -007, -036, -
037, -038, -077, -078
Adjacent to Ashby Rd., generally
between Meade St. and El Cajon Ave.

1.15 Right-of-Way
(ROW)
Urban Residential
(UR)
005-130-081
Front St. east of Oregon Ave.

0.50 Village Mixed-Use
(VMU) UR
005-690-001, -002, and -003
Ashby Rd. and adjacent parcels,
south of Flower St.

0.41 ROW Public Facilities (PF)
005-690-004, -005
Ashby Rd. and adjacent parcels,
north of Meade St.

0.68 ROW PF
006-030-035
Ashby Rd. south of El Cajon Ave. –
ROW and City Materials Yard

5.74 ROW
PF and ROW
(±1.2 acres PF;
±4.54 acres ROW)
006-470-006
Lake Blvd. east of Buckeye St.

0.13 UR VMU
006-470-007
Lake Blvd. east of Buckeye St.

0.13 UR VMU
006-470-008
Lake Blvd. east of Buckeye St.

0.23 UR VMU
006-610-041
Lake Blvd. east of N. Beltline Rd. –
ROW and City construction
materials/staging yard)

25.11 Suburban Residential
(SR) ROW and PF
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 3
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Assessor’s Parcel Number/Location Parcel Size
(Acres)
Originally Proposed
Designation (Draft
Land Use Element)
Revised Land Use
Designation (Proposed
Land Use Element)
007-140-076
South of Shasta Lake School

9.65 PF UR
007-230-001
Adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5)

3.07 Open Space (OS) Urban Residential High B
(URH-B)
007-230-004
PG&E Substation, east of Parallel St.
and west of I-5

1.5 ROW PF
007-140-094
North of Cottage Ave./Ivy Ave.

14.07 SR UR
075-030-003
Arrowhead Ave.

12.6 Industrial (I) SR
The revisions shown in Table 3.0 required revisions to the 2040 General Plan Land Use Map (Figure

3.0-4 on page 3.0-9 of the DPEIR). The revised land Use Map is shown in Figure 1.

The revisions shown in Table 3.0 required recalculation of the acreages for certain land use designations as well as modifications to the development, population and employment projections identified in the DPEIR. Revisions were also required to the impact analyses in certain sections of the DPEIR.

Tables 2 through 6 below identify which tables in the DPEIR required revisions related to acreages, projected development, and build-out assumptions. Tables 7 through 10 identify tables in the DPEIR related to water supply and demand projections that required modifications based on revisions to the build-out projections. Table 11 includes a revised comparison of the project alternatives that were analyzed in the DPEIR.

Table 12 identifies text amendments that are required due to revisions to two General Plan Implementation Actions, revisions identified in Tables 1 through 11 below, and revisions required to correct minor typographical errors that were identified following circulation of the DPEIR.

New language and numbers are shown as bold and underlined. Deleted language and numbers are shown with strikethrough.

Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing Figure 1
Revised Figure 3.0-4 (DPEIR Page 3.0-9)
Proposed 2040 General Plan Designations
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 5
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan

Table 2
Revisions to Table 3.0-1 (DPEIR page 3.0-11) and Table 4.11-1 (DPEIR page 4.11-7) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Calculations – Residential Uses General Plan Land Use Designation
Gross Acres Developable Acres Allowable Densities Buildout Difference in Buildout Between 1999 and 2040
General Plans Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Rural Residential A 382 347 142 118 0.5 0.5 85 76 -9
Rural Residential B 697 701 77 80 0.2 0.2 15 16 +1
Suburban Residential 1,899 1,358
1,360
1,385 957
954
3 3 2,639
2,058
2,049
-581
-590
Urban Residential 807 1,125
1,102
673 930
914
10 12 3,823
6,859
6,674
+3,036
+2,851
Urban Residential High (URH) 52 - 49 - 20 - 745 - -745
URH A - 5 - 4 - 30 - 105 +105

URH B -
96 93
-
79 76
- 20 -
1,009
950
+1,009
+950
Village Commercial (Residential Uses) 9 - 8 - 20 - 129 - -129 Village Mixed-Use (Residential Uses) - 17 - 22 - 30 -
563
561
+563
+561
Mixed-Use (Residential Uses) 359 440 284 350 20 30 5,664 10,475 +4,811 Total Residential: 4,205 4,089
4,065
2,618 2,540
2,518
- - 13,100
21,161
20,906
+8,061
+7,806
Table 3
Revised Table 3.0-2 (DPEIR page 3.0-11) and Table 4.11-2 (DPEIR page 4.11-7) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Calculations – Commercial and Industrial Uses General Plan Land Use Designation
Gross Acres Developable Acres Allowable FAR Buildout Difference in Buildout Between 1999 and 2040
General Plans Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040 General
Plan
City Center Commercial 11 - 344,695 - 0.25 - 36,353 - -36,353 Village Commercial (Commercial Uses) 9 - 285,023 - 0.25 - 29,343 - -29,343 Village Mixed-Use (Commercial Uses) - 17 -
254,891
253,594 - 3 -
563,883
559,992
+563,883
+559,992
Mixed-Use (Commercial Uses) 359 440 9,904,860 12,205,524 1 1 9,902,082 12,196,853 +2,294,771 Commercial 114
118
117 3,057,560 3,165,574 3,154,025 0.25 2 529,502
6,030,378
6,007,280
+5,500,876
+5,477,778
Industrial 714 700
713 21,658,515 21,262,107 21,622,411 0.40 1 7,541,075
20,139,563
20,499,867
+12,598,488
+12,958,792
Light Industrial 31 67 966,292 1,741,726 0.30 1 289,888 1,734,486 +1,444,598 Total Commercial/Industrial: 1,238 1,342
1,354
36,216,945 38,629,822
38,977,280 - - 18,328,243
40,665,163
40,998,478
+22,336,920
+22,670,235

Page 6 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table 4
Revised Table 3.0-3 (DPEIR page 3.0-11) and Table 4.11-3 (DPEIR page 4.11-7) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Calculations – Other Uses Other Land Use Designations
Gross Acres Difference between
1999 and 2040
General Plans
Existing 1999
General Plan
Proposed 2040
General Plan
Public Facilities 307 344
326
+37
+19
Community Park 138 163 +25
Open Space 0 114
117
+114
+117
ROW/ Easements 656 714
744
+58
+88
Gov. Owned 380 158
157
-222
-223
Total Other 1,481 1,493
1,507
+12
+26

Table 5
Revised Table 3.0-4 (DPEIR page 3.0-13), Table 4.11-4 (DPEIR page 4.11-9), Table 4.14-3 (DPEIR page 4.14-5), and Table 7.1-1 (DPEIR page 7.0-3) Residential Growth Projections (Population and Housing) Housing
Type
Existing
Units
Additional
Units at
Buildout
Total
Number of
Units at
Buildout
20-Year Projections Annual Projections
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth
Unit
Growth
Population
Growth
SingleFamily 3,645 9,009
8,815
12,654
12,460
550
542
1,370
1,350
28 27 67
Multi-Family 542 1,114
1,055
1,656
1,597
149
142
371
354
7 18
Mixed-Use 38 11,038
11,036
11,076
11,074 152 378 8 19
Total 4,225 21,161
20,906
25,386
25,131
851
836
2,119
2,082
43 42
106
104

Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 7
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table 6
Revised Table 3.0-5 (DPEIR page 3.0-13), Table 4.11-5 (DPEIR page 4.11-9), and Table 7.1-2 (DPEIR page 7.0-3)
Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use Commercial Growth Projections (Square Footage and Jobs) Category
Existing
Square
Footage
Additional
SF at
Buildout
Total SF at
Buildout
20-Year Projections Annual Projections
SF Growth Job Growth SF Growth Job Growth
Commercial 316,096 6,030,378
6,007,280
6,331,148
6,323,376
60,304
60,073 147 3,015 3,004 7
Industrial 1,122,544 20,139,563
20,499,867
21,262,107
21,622,411
181,256
184,499
242
246
9,063
9,225
12 Light
Industrial 7,240 1,734,486
1,741,726
1,734,486 20,814 28 1,041 1
Mixed-Use 8,671 12,196,853 12,205,524 109,772 272 5,489 14 Village MixedUse 228,948 563,883
559,992
764,673
788,940
5,639
5,600 13
282
280 1
Total 1,683,499 40,665,163
40,998,478
42,305,178
42,681,977
377,785
380,758
702
706
18,889
19,039 35
Tables 7 through 10 show the City’s available water supply in non-drought years and in years when the City’s water allocation from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is reduced in response to drought conditions.

Table 7
Revised Table 4.18-12 (DPEIR page 4.18-28)
Normal Year Supply and Demand Projections (Acre-Feet)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 6,480 6,480 6,480 6,480 6,480
Demand 2,140
2,139
2,247
2,244
2,355
2,350
2,462
2,455
2,570
2,560
Surplus 4,340
4,341
4,233
4,236
4,125
4,130
4,018
4,025
3,910
3,920

Page 8 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table 8
Revised Table 4.18-13 (DPEIR page 4.18-30)
Single-Dry Year Supply and Demand Projections (Acre-Feet) Based on 75 Percent of Projected Prior Three-Year Historical Average Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 1,573
1,572
1,653
1,652
1,734
1,731
1,815
1,810
1,895
1,889
Demand 2,140
2,139
2,247
2,244
2,355
2,350
2,462
2,455
2,570
2,560
Balance -567
-524
-594
-593
-621
-619
-648
-645
-675
-672
Table 9
Revised Table 4.18-14 (DPEIR page 4.18-30)
Multiple-Dry Year Supply and Demand Projections (Acre-Feet) Based on 50 Percent of Projected Prior Three-Year Historical Average Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 1,049
1,048
1,102
1,101
1,156
1,154
1,210
1,206
1,263
1,259
Demand 2,140
2,139
2,247
2,244
2,355
2,350
2,462
2,455
2,570
2,560
Balance -1,091
-1,090
-1,145
-1,143
-1,199
-1,196
-1,253
-1,249
-1,306
-1,301

Table 10
Revised Table 4.18-15 (DPEIR page 4.18-30)
Multiple-Dry Year Supply and Demand Projections (Acre-Feet) Based on Public Health and Safety – Domestic Use Only (55 GPCD) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 650 683
682
716
714
748
746
781
778
Demand 2,140
2,139
2,247
2,244
2,355
2,350
2,462
2,455
2,570
2,560
Balance -1,490
-1,489
-1,565
-1,562
-1,639
-1,636
-1,714
-1,709
-1,789
-1,782
Adjusted Demand
Stage 6
(70% reduced water use)
642 674
673
706
705
739
737
771
768
Adjusted Balance
Stage 6
(70% reduced water use)
8 9 9 10 10
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 9
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table 11
Revised Table 6.0-1 (DPEIR Page 6.0-5)
Comparison of Alternatives at Full Build-Out of the General Plan Category Proposed Project
(2040 General Plan)
Alternative 1
No Project
(Current General
Plan)
Alternative 2
ResidentialFocused
Alternative 3
Commercial/
Industrial Intensive
Population 52,691
52,056 32,619 52,691 52,056
52,691
52,056
Housing Units 21,161
20,906 13,100 21,161 20,906
21,161
20,906
Single-Family
Residential
9,009
8,815 6,562 9,009 8,815
9,009
8,815
Multi-Family
Residential
1,114
1,055 745 1,114 1,055
1,114
1,055
Mixed-Use
Residential
11,038
11,036 5,793 11,038 11,036
11,038
11,036
Non-Residential
(Square Feet)
40,665,163
40,998,478 18,328,242 18,328,242 51,234,369 51,651,012
Commercial 6,030,378
6,007,280 595,197 595,197 7,612,341 7,583,469
Industrial 21,874,049
22,234,353
7,830,963 7,830,963 27,625,007
28,075,387
Mixed-Use
Commercial
12,760,736
12,756,845 9,902,082 9,902,082 15,997,020 15,992,157
Jobs 75,466
75,918 36,490 36,490 95,046 95,564
Commercial 14,708
14,652 1,448 1,448 18,567 18,496
Industrial 29,166
29,646 10,441 10,441 36,833 37,434
Mixed-Use
Commercial
31,592
31,620 24,601 24,601 39,646 39,634

Page 10 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table 12
Revisions to the Text of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report DPEIR Section DPEIR
Page
Revision

4.15 Public Services 4.15-11 Implementation Action HS-7.6 is revised as follows:

Evaluate existing supportive service programs and promote new programs that increase the capacity for aging-in-place through active engagement with the senior community. Work with the development community to identify and encourage new housing designs that will support aging-in-place.

4.17 Transportation 4.17-27 Implementation Action HS-7.5 is revised as follows:

Support the development and continuation of high-quality health care services, including services for vision, dental, and mental health, and substance abuse, and promote
connectivity to those services through transit and active transportation options, consistent with the Circulation and Land Use Elements.

4.3 Air Quality 4.3-17 Revise the fourth bulleted item to correct an acronym:
“…This rule identifies Reasonably Available Control Measures (RAMC RACM” that could be considered…”

4.7 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Climate
Change, and Energy

4.7-36 Revise the first paragraph under Table 4.7-7 to reflect revised build-out projections:
“Implementation of the 2040 General Plan is anticipated to result in a population increase of 2,082 2,119 by the end of the 20-year planning period; based on an increase in GHG
emissions of ±11,927 MT CO2e over the 20-year planning
period, the per capita GHG emissions for the increased
population (2,082 2,119 people) would be ±5.72 ±5.63 MT CO2e.”
[Note: The revisions to the DPEIR would increase the 20-year growth projections for housing by 15 units and would
decrease growth projections for commercial/industrial uses by ±3,000 square feet. These revisions would not significantly change the estimated GHG emissions over the 20-year
planning period, and additional analysis is not warranted].

Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 11
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
DPEIR Section DPEIR
Page
Revision

4.7 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Climate
Change, and Energy

4.7-41 Revise the second paragraph under Impact 4.7-4 to reflect revised build-out projections:
“…Based on a population increase of 2,082 2,119 by the end of the 20-year planning period, and an increase in GHG
emissions of 11,927 MT CO2e over the 20-year planning
period, the per capita GHG emissions for the increased
population (2,082 2,119 people) would be ±5.72 ±5.63 MT CO2e…”
[Note: The revisions to the DPEIR would increase the 20-year growth projections for housing by 15 units and would
decrease growth projections for commercial/industrial uses by ±3,000 square feet. These revisions would not significantly change the estimated GHG emissions over the 20-year
planning period, and additional analysis is not warranted].

4.9 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials

4.9-12 Revise the last sentence of the second paragraph under “Shasta County Emergency Operations Plan” to correct an acronym:
“…The EOS EOP is based on the functions and principles of SEMS.”

4.9 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials

4.9-15 Revise the second sentence in the second paragraph under “Naturally Occurring Asbestos” to correct an acronym:
“…When construction, grading, excavation, or other grounddisturbing activities occur in areas known or suspected to contain NOE NOA …”

4.10 Hydrology and
Water Quality

4.10-19 Revise the third paragraph under Impact 4.10-3 to reflect revised acreages:
“…In addition, the 2040 General Plan increases the amount of designated open space by ±117 ±114 acres as compared to the current General Plan, and these areas would provide for groundwater recharge…”

4.14 Population and
Housing

4.14-15 Revise the second paragraph to reflect revised build-out projections:
“…growth projections are estimated at 42 43 housing units per year, and the annual population growth is estimated at 104 106 during the 20-year planning period for the 2040 General Plan…”

Page 12 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
DPEIR Section DPEIR
Page
Revision

4.17 Transportation 4.17-39 Revise the description for CAPCOA Measure T-7 to correct an acronym:
“Implement a marketing strategy to promote an employer’s CRT CTR program…”

4.18 Utilities and
Service Systems

4.18-19 Revise the third paragraph under Impact 4.18-1 to reflect revised build-out projections:
“…The proposed 2040 General Plan estimates that population will increase by 2,083 2,119 through 2040…”

4.18 Utilities and
Service Systems

4.18-26 Revise the first paragraph under Impact 4.18-5 to reflect revised build-out projections:
“During the 20-year planning period for the 2040 General Plan, it is anticipated that 837 851 residential dwelling units and 380,757 377,785 square feet of commercial/industrial uses will be developed. On an annual basis, an average of 42 43 dwelling units and 19,039 18,889 square feet of
commercial/industrial uses will be constructed, with an annual population growth of 104 106 people…”

4.18 Utilities and
Service Systems

4.18-34 Revise the second paragraph under Operational Solid Waste to reflect revised build-out projections:
“Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would increase the population by about 2,083 2,119 over the 20-year planning period. Non-residential development is estimated to add about 706 702 jobs. Based on an average residential waste generation rate of 6.5 pounds per person per day, the addition of 2,083 2,119 residents would result in an increase in solid waste generation of ±7 tons per day. Based on a rate of 11.7 pounds per employee per day, the addition of 706 702
employees would increase solid waste generation by ±4 tons per day, for a total increase in solid waste generation of ±11 tons per day over the 20-year planning period for the 2040 General Plan.”

4.18 Utilities and
Service Systems

4.18-35 Revise the first sentence of the second paragraph to correct an acronym:

Pursuant to CCR Titles 14 and 27, the IRWM IWMB sets
minimum standards…
Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 13
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan

4.0 Conclusions
Pursuant to §15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given that the draft EIR is available for public review but before the EIR is certified. New information is not considered significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. As described in §15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, revisions could be considered significant and require recirculation of a draft EIR if:
 A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure.
 A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation is adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.  A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the alternative or mitigation measure is not adopted.
 The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

As documented in Section 3.0 (Revisions to the DPEIR), the revisions to the land use designations described in Table 1 required recalculation of the acreages for certain land use designations as well as modifications to the development, population and employment projections identified in the DPEIR. Table 2 and Table 3 provide a comparison between the existing 1999 General Plan and the proposed 2040 General Plan, and identify the revised calculations for the applicable land use revisions.

As shown in Table 4, the revisions resulted in an increase of 18 acres of land designated as Public Facilities; a decrease of three acres of land designated Open Space; a decrease of 30 acres of land designated ROW/Easement; and an increase of one acre of public (government) land. The revisions shown in Table 4, for the most part, include corrections that are needed to reflect existing land uses and would not change the conclusions reached in the DPEIR.

As shown in Table 5 the revisions to residential land use designations resulted in an increase of 15 dwelling units and a population increase of 37 over what was analyzed in the DPEIR for the 20-year planning period; annual projections for residential units increased by one. As shown in Table 6, revisions to commercial and industrial land use designations resulted in a decrease of 2,973 square feet and a decrease of 4 jobs below what was analyzed in the DPEIR for the 20-year planning period; annual projections for commercial and industrial uses decreased by 150 square feet. The revisions would not significantly increase or decrease the development potential of lands within the City.

Tables 7 through 10 demonstrate that the revisions to land use designations identified in Table 1 would result in negligible changes in the water supply and demand projections that were identified in the DPEIR, and there would be no change in the conclusions reached regarding the effectiveness of the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Page 14 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Because the revisions to land use designations would result in only a minor change in growth projections, no further analysis of potential environmental effects is warranted. As shown in Table 11, the revisions would not significantly change the comparison of project alternatives and would not change the conclusions reached in the Alternative Analysis (Section 6.0 of the DPEIR). The revisions identified in Table 12 merely enhance two of the proposed Implementation Actions, reflect minor modifications resulting from revisions to land use designations, and correct minor typographical errors contained in the DPEIR.

The revisions do not constitute significant new information, would not result in new significant environmental impacts, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in the DPEIR. Therefore, recirculation of the DPEIR is not required.

Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing

APPENDIX A
Comments and Responses to Comments on the DPEIR
Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070574

LEAD AGENCY:

City of Shasta Lake
4477 Main Street
Shasta Lake, CA 96019
530.275.7400

October 2022
Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing Comments and Responses to Comments
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Overview....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Public and Agency Comments ..................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 LETTER 1 California Highway Patrol ............................................................................................................................. 2 LETTER 1 Responses .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 LETTER 2 Gracious Palmer ................................................................................................................................................. 8 LETTER 2 Responses .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing Comments and Responses to Comments Page 1
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan

1.0 OVERVIEW
The City of Shasta Lake, as lead agency, prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) to provide the public and interested agencies with information about the potential environmental effects that could occur due to implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan and is intended to guide investment, development, and conservation in the City through 2040.

The DPEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000-§21189) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000-§15387) and was made available to the general public and interested agencies for a 45-day public review period. The agency review period managed by the State Clearinghouse and the general public review period ended on September 8, 2022.

Pursuant to CEQA §21091(d)(1), the lead agency must consider comments it receives on a draft EIR if those comments are received within the public review period, and may choose to respond to late comments. In accordance with §15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall respond to comments that raise significant environmental issues. The written response must be detailed, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., revisions to the project to mitigate anticipated impacts) are not accepted by the lead agency.

The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment (§15088 of the CEQA Guidelines).

2.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS

The City received two comment letters (emails) that addressed the DPEIR before the end of the comment period. Comments were submitted by Timothy Hinkson, Sergeant with the California Highway Patrol, and Gracious Palmer, a City of Shasta Lake citizen. Each letter/email is included below and is followed by responses to the comments.

Additional comments were submitted to the City that were specific to the proposed 2040 General Plan but did not address the content or adequacy of the DPEIR. These comments are addressed under separate cover and will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration.

3.0 CONCLUSION

As documented herein, no substantial evidence was presented in the comment letters to support a fair argument that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would cause a significant impact on the environment, other than the significant environmental impacts raised in the DPEIR; therefore, no revisions to the DPEIR are required in response to the comments.

Page 2 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
LETTER 1 California Highway Patrol
From: Hinkson, Timothy@CHP <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 7:40 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Carla Thompson <[email protected]>; CHP-EIR <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander, Kevin@CHP <[email protected]>; CHP-10AAdesk <[email protected]>; Lange, Kristen@CHP <[email protected]>
Subject: Redding Area (135) Response to Environmental Document Review – SCH # 2021070574 The California Highway Patrol (CHP) Redding Area, has reviewed the Environmental Impact Document (SCH 2021070574) proposed by the City of Shasta Lake. The CHP Redding Area was asked to evaluate potential traffic safety and congestion issues relative to the proposed project located within the City of Shasta Lake in relation to development for future expansion.

The proposed magnitude of the project (+2,500 Acres) would likely place a greater strain on limited public safety resources with the expected increase in vehicular traffic on State Route 151, Interstate 5 and unincorporated county roads within Shasta County. The proposed project is located directly in connection with State Route 151 and Interstate 5 which traverse through the middle of the City of Shasta Lake. These roadways already suffer from heavy congestion during peak periods of use and during special events in the City of Shasta Lake and Shasta County. This project could have a negative impact on CHP Redding operations due to the increased traffic congestion, which could necessitate the need for additional traffic control measures to mitigate the potential increase in traffic collisions within our jurisdiction. The potential impact to CHP operations are as follows:
 Increased Traffic – This would potentially increase traffic congestion and calls for service on Interstate 5. This increase in workload could have a negative impact on response times to calls for service.  Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety – With increased housing, including additional new roadways, comes the concern of increased vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. Potential concerns include the design of roadways of sufficient size to accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at concurrent times while keeping safety paramount. This could also potentially increase traffic congestion and calls for service, negatively impacting CHP Redding’s ability to respond to calls for service in a timely manner.
1-1
1-2
Comments and Responses to Comments Page 3
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
 Increased Heavy Truck Traffic – The addition of housing and businesses would increase delivery of goods and products to local retailers and residential customers. A review of current truck routes and approved hazardous materials routes would need to be completed to ensure an efficient flow of traffic on all state highways and local roads. A review to ensure the roads are capable of the increased truck traffic to include the increased size and weight associated with heavy truck traffic.  School Bus Routing – CHP Redding oversees school bus operations within Shasta County, and with increased housing and new roadways, school bus routes would need to be revised which would include a review of any new bus stops by CHP Redding. CHP Redding is also responsible for school bus driver testing and licensing within Shasta County. With increased residential housing, this would cause an increased workload for CHP Redding to review and approve school bus stops and to process and approve school bus driver applicants. Furthermore, the safety of children at all school bus stops is the highest priority, and locations would need to be safe and suitable for existing vehicular traffic, pedestrian, bicyclist and a school bus at concurrent times.
 Additional Enforcement Demands – Increased housing and new roadways brings more vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, which all use roadways within California. CHP Redding would have an increased workload to ensure traffic safety remains paramount. Additionally, CHP Redding could incur more congestion of local roads, state highways, and state freeways. Increased congestion increases calls for service, which ultimately reduces the response times as the call volume increases.  Reduction of Jurisdiction – With the proposed expansion project, the City of Shasta Lake could potentially expand its city limits thereby causing a reduction of CHP Redding jurisdiction on local roads.

If you have any questions regarding these concerns, please contact CHP Redding at (530) 225-0500.

Tim Hinkson, Sergeant
Redding Area (135)
2503 Cascade Blvd
Redding, CA 96003
(530) 225-0500
[email protected]
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6

Page 4 ends

Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
LETTER 1 Responses
Comment 1-1: The Commenter states that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2040 General Plan. He states that due to the magnitude of the project and increased traffic on State Route 151 (SR 151), Interstate 5 (I-5), and unincorporated county roads within Shasta County, it would likely place a greater strain on limited public safety resources. These roadways already suffer from heavy congestion during peak periods of use and during special events.

Increased traffic congestion could result in the need for additional traffic control measures to mitigate potential traffic collisions. Increased traffic congestion and calls for service on I-5 could increase workload and have a negative impact on response times.

Response 1-1: Also see Response 1-5. Included as Appendix E to the DPEIR is a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the 2040 General Plan by Ganddini Group.

The TIA addresses potential traffic impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The study analyzed 19 intersections and 48 roadway segments throughout the City and identified both existing and future (2040) levels of service (LOS) in these locations. LOS A, B, and C are considered acceptable. LOS D, E, and F are considered unacceptable.

The TIA concludes that all 48 roadway segments that were studied currently operate at acceptable LOS, and would continue to operate at acceptable levels over the 20-year planning period. As stated in Section 4.17 (Transportation) of the DPEIR on page 4.17-12, three intersections currently operate at LOS D: Mussel Shoals Avenue/Grand Coulee Boulevard at SR 151 (AM and PM peak hours), Cascade Boulevard at SR 151 (AM and PM peak hours), and South Cascade Boulevard at Pine Grove Avenue (PM peak hour).

Over the 20-year planning period, one additional intersection would operate at an unacceptable level: I-5 northbound ramps at Pine Grove Avenue (LOS F during the PM peak hour). The intersection of Mussel Shoals Avenue/Grand Coulee Boulevard at SR 151 would worsen to LOS E during the PM peak hour, and the intersection of South Cascade Boulevard at Pine Grove Avenue would worsen to LOS F during the PM peak hour. DPEIR Table 4.17-6 on page

4.17-13 identifies improvements to these intersections that would result in acceptable LOS A or B.

The DPEIR also analyzes traffic collisions that have occurred in the City between 2015 and 2021 (see discussion under Impact 4.17-3, beginning on

Page 4 ends

systemic safety countermeasures for high-risk roadways in the City, based on the evaluation of collision data described in the DPEIR and the City’s Local Road Safety Plan.

Future projects in the City will be evaluated to determine project-specific impacts related to traffic congestion and traffic hazards. Projects must be Comments and Responses to Comments Page 5
Shasta Lake 2040 General Plan
consistent with the General Plan policies and implementation actions related to the transportation system, including those identified in DPEIR Section 4.17.4.

In addition, the City has been successful obtaining funding for roadway safety improvements and will continue to pursue funding opportunities.

There is no evidence to suggest that the analysis and conclusions in the TIA and DPEIR regarding current and projected traffic volumes, LOS, traffic hazards, or necessary improvements are inaccurate. No revisions to the DPEIR or mitigation measures are necessary.

Comment 1-2: The Commenter states that the design of roadways must be of sufficient size to accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at concurrent times to minimize congestion and calls for service.

Response 1-2: As stated under Impact 4.17-1 on page 4.17-31 of the DPEIR, the Circulation Element of the 2040 General Plan focuses on developing a transportation system that meets the needs of all segments of the population through a “complete streets” approach.

Policy CIR-1.9 requires that the specific needs of the population be considered when designing roadways, including bicycle and pedestrian access, transit and drop-off needs, and safety around crosswalks, intersections, and roundabouts. Policy CIR-2.1 requires that the City monitor, maintain, and improve as necessary, the operation, safety, and performance of the street system, including roadway surfaces, capacity, and traffic calming. Policy CIR-2.1 also calls on the City to strive to achieve a LOS C or better and reduce vehicle miles travelled to minimize potential congestion and increase safety on streets and at intersections.

Implementation Action CIR-4.4 requires development projects to construct street improvements at the time of property development (unless deferred for good cause). Future roadways would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Construction Standards, which include street cross sections based on the classification of the road (i.e., arterial, major collector, minor collector, local). Additional policies and implementation actions related to the City’s transportation system are identified in Section 4.17.4 of the DPEIR.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would have a beneficial effect on the City’s transportation system by enhancing safety on the roadway system and promoting alternative travel modes, including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation systems. No revisions to the DPEIR or mitigation measures are necessary.

Comment 1-3: The Commenter expresses concern with increased heavy truck traffic and states that the addition of housing and businesses would increase delivery of goods and products to the area. A review of truck routes and approved hazardous materials routes needs to be completed to ensure efficient flow of traffic on all State highways and local roads. In addition, an evaluation should be done to ensure that roads can accommodate the increased size and weight associated with heavy truck traffic.

Page 6 ends

Shasta Lake City CouncilNovember 1, 2022

Shasta Lake City Council
November 1, 2022