LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MAY 15, 2024
The Council may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at City Hall, 9955 Live Oak Boulevard, Live Oak, during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the City of Live Oak’s website at www.liveoakcity.org, subject to staff’s availability to post the documents before the meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available. If you have a disability and need disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (530) 695-2112 x107. Requests must be made at least 24 hours in advance.
• Remote Viewing:
o Members of the public can view a livestream of the meeting online at https://liveoakca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1. o Members of the public can access the Zoom webinar as follows:
▪ Join by Electronic Device:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87195623781
▪ Join by Phone:
1-669-900-6833 or 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 871 9562 3781
• Public Comment: Members of the public can submit general public comments, as well as comment on specific agenda items in the following ways:
o Public Attendance: Members of the public who attend in person may make comments from the Council Chamber podium.
LIVE OAK
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MAY 15, 2024
6:00 PM
MEETING LOCATION
LIVE OAK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9955 LIVE OAK BOULEVARD
LIVE OAK, CALIFORNIA 95953
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
ASHLEY HERNANDEZ, MAYOR
NANCY SANTANA, VICE MAYOR
JERAMY CHAPDELAINE, COUNCILMEMBER
LAKHVIR GHAG, COUNCILMEMBER
BOB WOTEN, COUNCILMEMBER
MARK SCOTT,
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
NICOLE ROSSER,
CITY ATTORNEY
1 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MAY 15, 2024
o Live Remote Public Comment: Members of the public can submit a live remote public comment by:
▪ Joining the virtual Council meeting via the link below. When public comment is opened, raise your virtual hand and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87195623781
▪ Joining the virtual Council meeting by calling the phone number below. When public comment is opened, dial *9 to raise your hand and be called upon to speak for up to 3 minutes.
1-669-900-6833 or 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 871 9562 3781
o Email Public Comment: Comments from the public on agenda items will be accepted until 1:00 pm on the date of the meeting, via email to the City Clerk at [email protected]. Comments will be distributed to Council prior to the meeting and attached to the minutes. Please note that emailed comments will NOT be read aloud by staff during the meeting. o eComment Feature: Comments from the public on agenda items will be accepted until 1:00 pm on the date of the meeting, via the eComment feature at
https://liveoakca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1. Comments will be distributed to Council prior to the meeting and attached to the minutes. Please note that eComments will NOT be read aloud by staff during the meeting.
2 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MAY 15, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BY CITY MANAGER ONLY
PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT
Any person wishing to address the City Council on general jurisdictional matters or consent calendar items may do so at this time. If you are commenting on an agenda item, your comments will be heard at the time that item is scheduled for discussion. The City Council adopted a time limit of three minutes per person. The Brown Act does not allow for Council discussion of items not on the agenda. Councilmembers may only a) refer the matter to staff; b) ask for additional information; c) request a report back; or d) provide a limited factual response for items not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT ITEMS
Consent Calendar is passed by one motion with exceptions and separate votes as noted.
1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the May 1, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting minutes. (Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk)
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Planning Commissioner Appointment
Recommendation: Confirm the appointment of Sutter County Planning Commissioner Christine Ivory to the Live Oak Planning Commission.
(Kevin Valente, Planning Director)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Introduction of an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Small Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office Project, and Resolutions Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Approving the General Plan Map Amendment, and Approving the Use Permit
Recommendation: 1) Waive the first reading of the ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance to Rezone a
0.14-acre Property from Small Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office Project”; and 2) Adopt resolutions (3). (Kevin Valente, Planning Director)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. Adopting Mobile Vendor and Sidewalk Vendor Ordinances Recommendation: City Council discuss the options legally available to the City in adopting ordinances to provide for permitting of food trucks and sidewalk vending businesses to operate in the City of Live Oak, and to provide staff with direction on drafting such local law. (Mark Scott, Interim City Manager)
3 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MAY 15, 2024
5. Discussion of Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Assumptions Recommendation: Receive and provide feedback to the City Manager oral report. (Mark Scott, Interim City Manager)
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
4 City of Live Oak
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes
Contact Information: Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
Recommendation: Approve the May 1, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting minutes.
Attachments:
Minutes
5 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 1, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order by Mayor Hernandez at Live Oak City Council Chambers, 9955 Live Oak Boulevard, Live Oak, CA at 6:03 pm.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Woten, Chapdelaine, Ghag, and Mayor Hernandez Excused: Vice Mayor Santana
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Mayor Hernandez led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Ghag delivered the invocation.
CORRECTIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BY CITY MANAGER ONLY There were no corrections and/or changes.
PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
There were no presentations and/or recognitions.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following member of the public submitted a written public comment: Lindsay Alvarez.
CONSENT ITEMS
Consent Calendar is passed by one motion with exceptions and separate votes as noted.
MOTION: APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 2 AND 3 WHICH WERE PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
(MOTION: GHAG; SECOND: HERNANDEZ)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, CHAPDELAINE, GHAG, AND MAYOR HERNANDEZ NOES: NONE
ABSENT: VICE MAYOR SANTANA
LIVE OAK
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
MAY 1, 2024
6:00 PM
MEETING LOCATION
LIVE OAK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
9955 LIVE OAK BOULEVARD
LIVE OAK, CALIFORNIA 95953
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
ASHLEY HERNANDEZ, MAYOR
NANCY SANTANA, VICE MAYOR
JERAMY CHAPDELAINE, COUNCILMEMBER
LAKHVIR GHAG, COUNCILMEMBER
BOB WOTEN, COUNCILMEMBER
MARK SCOTT,
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
NICOLE ROSSER,
CITY ATTORNEY
6 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 1, 2024
1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
Council action: April 17, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting minutes approved.
2. Update Regarding Archer Avenue Emergency Repair
Scott Rolls, City Engineer
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion at the request of Mayor Hernandez.
3. Purchase of Sewer Lift Station Pump
Jeff Nelson, Interim Public Works Director
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion at the request of Mayor Hernandez.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. City Council Consideration of Appointment to City of Live Oak Planning Commission Kevin Valente, Planning Director
Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, provided a report for the Council.
Public Comment was opened and closed without any speakers.
MOTION: NOMINATE MICHELLE SERPA.
(MOTION: HERNANDEZ; SECOND: GHAG)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, CHAPDELAINE, GHAG, AND MAYOR HERNANDEZ NOES: NONE
ABSENT: VICE MAYOR SANTANA
5. Discussion – Adopting Mobile Vendor and Sidewalk Vendor Ordinances Mark Scott, Interim City Manager
Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, provided a report for the Council.
Public Comment was opened and closed without any speakers.
Council action: Direction provided to draft an ordinance to be brought back for Council discussion. 7 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 1, 2024
BUSINESS ITEMS
6. Authority to Seek Proposals for Water Rate Study
Mark Scott, Interim City Manager
Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, provided a report for the Council.
Public Comment was opened and closed without any speakers.
MOTION: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SEEK PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE WATER RATE STUDY AND SEWER ENTERPRISE RATE STUDY AND FINANCING PLAN. (MOTION: GHAG; SECOND: HERNANDEZ)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, CHAPDELAINE, GHAG, AND MAYOR HERNANDEZ NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MAYOR SANTANA
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
2. Update Regarding Archer Avenue Emergency Repair
Scott Rolls, City Engineer
Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, addressed questions from the Council.
MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE.
(MOTION: HERNANDEZ; SECOND: GHAG)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, CHAPDELAINE, GHAG, AND MAYOR HERNANDEZ NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MAYOR SANTANA
3. Purchase of Sewer Lift Station Pump
Jeff Nelson, Interim Public Works Director
Tony Wright, Chief Plant Operator, addressed questions from the Council.
MOTION: APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A NEW FLYGT SEWER PUMP FOR SEWER LIFT STATIONS. (MOTION: HERNANDEZ; SECOND: GHAG)
VOTE: MOTION PASSED 4-0-1
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS WOTEN, CHAPDELAINE, GHAG, AND MAYOR HERNANDEZ NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MAYOR SANTANA
UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, provided an update on the business grants program. Mr. Scott discussed the animal control issues and the budget review process. Additionally, Mr. Scott touched on his attendance at the Street Food Festival.
8 LIVE OAK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 1, 2024
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Woten touched on his attendance at the Sutter Animal Services Authority meeting and the Regional Waste Management Authority meeting.
Councilmember Chapdelaine highlighted his attendance at the Street Food Festival.
Councilmember Ghag discussed the concerns regarding animal control issues and the maintenance of the parks.
Councilmember Ghag touched on his attendance at the Street Food Festival and highlighted Bike Month.
Mayor Hernandez highlighted the Street Food Festival as well as the upcoming citywide garage sale. Mayor Hernandez touched on revamping the Live Oak Chamber of Commerce and animal control issues.
CLOSED SESSION
7. Public Employee Appointment: City Manager, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hernandez adjourned the meeting at 6:51 pm.
Ashley Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
9 City of Live Oak
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
Title: Planning Commissioner Appointment
Contact Information: Kevin Valente, AICP, Contract Planner Location: Citywide.
Background: The City of Live Oak Planning Commission is comprised of seven members.
Six members are appointed by the Mayor and City Council and one member is appointed by the Sutter County Planning Commission with confirmation from the Sutter County Board of Supervisors and the Live Oak City Council.
Analysis: The Sutter County Planning Commission selected Supervisorial District 1 Commissioner Christine Ivory to sit on the Live Oak Planning Commission as their representative. Commissioner Christine Ivory was selected by the Sutter County Planning Commission at the February 21, 2024 meeting with the appointment confirmed by the Sutter County Board of Supervisors at the March 12, 2024 meeting (see Attachment 1). It should be noted that this will be Commissioner Ivory's fourth consecutive year on the Live Oak Planning Commission.
As per the By-Laws of the Sutter County Planning Commission, Ms. Ivory's appointment must be confirmed by the Live Oak City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Recommendation: Confirm the appointment of Sutter County Planning Commissioner Christine Ivory to the Live Oak Planning Commission.
Attachments:
2024 Planning Commission Appointment - Live Oak
10 SUTTER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1130 Civic Center Boulevard, Suite A • Yuba City, CA 95993 • (530) 822-7400 www.suttercounty.org
Building Inspection Code Enforcement Planning Admin & Finance Environmental Health/CUPA Engineering/Water Resources Road Maintenance April 30, 2024
City of Live Oak
Attn: Kevin Valente, AICP
Planning Director
9955 Live Oak Boulevard
Live Oak, CA 95953
RE: Appointment of County Planning Commissioner to Live Oak Planning Commission
Dear Kevin Valente,
Sutter County has selected a representative to sit on the Live Oak Planning Commission.
Commissioner Christine Ivory, from Supervisorial District 1, was nominated by the Sutter County Planning Commission at its February 21, 2024, meeting and this appointment was confirmed by the Board of Supervisors at their March 12, 2024, meeting.
Per the Sutter County Planning Commission By-Laws, Commissioner Ivory's appointment to the Live Oak Planning Commission must be confirmed by the Live Oak City Council.
Commissioner Ivory's contact information is provided below:
Christine Ivory
3381 Clark Road
Live Oak, CA 95953
[email protected]
530-755-7088
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me by phone at (530) 822-7400 ext. 242 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Arwen Wacht
Principal Planner
11 City of Live Oak
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
Title: Introduction of an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Small Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office Project, and Resolutions Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Approving the General Plan Map Amendment, and Approving the Use Permit
Contact Information: Kevin Valente, AICP, Contract Planner Location: 2794 Pennington Road
Background: The project applicant is requesting a General Plan Map Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road identified as Sutter County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 006-171-001. The 0.14-acre project site is currently designated Smaller-Lot Residential in the Live Oak General Plan and has a Small Lot Residential zoning district (R-2). The subject property is currently developed with a 1,650-square-foot residence. Surrounding existing land uses include the Live Oak Memorial Park, the City of Live Oak Corporation Yard, and Rancho Valley Mobile Home Park to the north, across Pennington Road; the Live Oak Sikh Temple and single-family residences to the west; and single-family residences to the east and south.
On April 16, 2024, the Live Oak Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed project. Staff presented the proposed project and the Live Oak Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of all requested entitlements.
Analysis: The proposed project includes the conversion of the first-floor of the existing single-family residence into a medical office and clinic. The second-floor of the single-family residence would be used as storage space for the office.
Pursuant to Section 17.02.020 of the Live Oak Municipal Code (LOMC), a medical office and clinic is a conditionally permitted use in the Medium Density Residential zoning district (R-3). Therefore, the project applicant is requesting the approval of a General Plan Map Amendment from Smaller-Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Rezone from R-2 to R-3 to allow the operation of a medical office and clinic with a Use Permit.
The proposed project would include modifications to the building's interior, 12 including the addition of a registration counter near the front of the building, a 32-inch-wide door to the hallway entrance, and additional kitchen counters for clinical supply storage. Modifications to the building's exterior would include the conversion of the existing backyard into a parking lot. Other exterior property modifications would include repairing gaps in the existing fencing; constructing a 36-inch-wide walkway from the parking lot to the building's backdoor; constructing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements including ramps for the entrances; and increasing the dimensions of the existing front entrance walkway. All walkways and ramps associated with the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with ADA. Project site access would be provided by McElroy Way to the west and would connect to the proposed parking lot.
Environmental Review
In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (See Exhibit 2A), which determined all potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of mitigation. Mitigation measures were provided for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources (see Exhibit 2B). The IS/MND was circulated for public review from March 8, 2024 to April 8, 2024 to solicit comments and input from the public. The IS/MND was also made available for review Monday through Friday, at the City of Live Oak City Hall, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The IS/MND was also available online at:
https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planning-department/planningprojects.
Staff received a comment letter from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and a comment letter from Caltrans (see Attachment 6).
The comment letter from the Central Valley RWQCB provides background information regarding applicable regulations and required permits. The comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND, has been noted for the record.
The comment letter from Caltrans requested a traffic study; however, pursuant to Table 17.35.010 of the LOMC, projects that include conversion of existing facilities to different uses require a minimum of 30,000 square feet of conversion area to require a traffic study. As discussed on page nine of the IS/MND, the proposed project would only modify the first floor of the existing residence, which would a total of 1,034 square feet. Thus, based on Table 17.35.010 of the LOMC, a traffic study is not warranted for the proposed project.
In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of the IS/MND and pursuant to Senate Bill 743, level of service (LOS) is not currently used for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Instead, vehicle miles traveled 13 (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. As discussed on page 55 of the IS/MND, the proposed project was anticipated to generate 36 trips per day, which is below the State Office of Planning and Research's screening threshold for VMT impacts. Therefore, the IS/MND concluded that the project would not be considered to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Furthermore, as discussed on page 53 of the IS/MND, according to the Live Oak General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), all City roadways would continue operating at an acceptable LOS following buildout of the General Plan, which anticipated urban uses for the project site.
CONCLUSION
As presented in this staff report, the requested General Plan Map Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit is consistent with City standards and guidelines. Therefore, the Live Oak Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No.2024-__, thereby adopting the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office and Clinic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office and Clinic Mitigation Monitoring Program (See Attachment 2);
2. Adopt Resolution No.2024-__, thereby approving the General Plan Map Amendment from Smaller-Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential (see Attachment 3);
3. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance to rezone the 0.14- acre property (APN) 06-171-001 from Small Lot Residential (R-2) to Medium Density Residential (R-3) (see Attachment 4); and
4. Adopt Resolution No.2024-__, thereby approving with conditions the Use Permit for the operation of a Medical Office and Clinic (see Attachment 5).
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Recommendation: 1) Waive the first reading of the ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance to Rezone a 0.14-acre Property from Small Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office Project"; and 2) Adopt resolutions (3).
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Site Plan
Attachment 2 - CC Resolution No. _____ IS MND
Attachment 3 - CC Resolution No. _____ GPA
Attachment 4 - Rezone Ordinance No. _____
Attachment 5 - CC Resolution No. _____ Use Permit
Exhibit 2A - 2794 Pennington Road ISMND
Exhibit 2B - 2794 Pennington Road MMP
Attachment 6 - Comment Letters
14 15
1 Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVE OAK ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL OFFICE AND
CLINIC PROJECT AS ADEQUATE FOR ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak received an application requesting a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 006-171-001); and, WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak received an application requesting a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 006-171-001); and, WHEREAS, an IS/MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period, with the public review period commencing on March 8, 2024, and ending on April 8, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the Live Oak Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and recommended City Council adoption of the IS/MND and MMP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the IS/MND and MMRP for this Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council gave notice of public hearing as required by law; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary; and
WHEREAS, the Live Oak City Council considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request; and WHEREAS, the custodian of the Final IS/MND and MMRP is the Community Development Department and the Final IS/MND was available for public review on the City’s website at: https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planningdepartment/planning-projects and at City Hall Monday through Friday 8:00 pm to 5:00 pm. The IS/MND is included as Exhibit 2A to this Resolution and the MMP is included as Exhibit 2B to this Resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that the City Council of the City of Live Oak hereby makes the following findings:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
16 2. The City Council of the City of Live Oak hereby FINDS, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and all comments received) that:
a. The City of Live Oak exercised overall control and direction over the CEQA review for the project, including the preparation of the Final IS/MND, and independently reviewed the Final IS/MND and MMP; and,
b. There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment once mitigation measures have been followed and assuming approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit; and
c. The Final IS/MND and MMP reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis.
3. The City Council hereby APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final IS/MND and MMP for the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Live Oak this 15th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
APPROVED:
Ashley Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
17 1
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVE OAK APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE 2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT FROM
SMALLER-LOT RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(APN 06-171-001)
WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak received an application requesting a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 006-171-001); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project in conformance with Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the “CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and adopted the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office and Clinic Project IS/MND and MMP; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the Live Oak Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and recommended City Council approve the General Plan Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the California Government Code provides for the amendment of all or part of an adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the General Plan Amendment is to ensure consistency between the City of Live Oak General Plan and the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project requires amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map to redesignate the property from Smaller-Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Live Oak City Council gave notice of public hearing as required by law; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary; and
WHEREAS, the Live Oak City Council considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that the Live Oak City Council does hereby make the following findings for the approval of the General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed project conforms to the provisions and standards of the General Plan because the proposed amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and does not conflict with any of the previously adopted Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan; 18 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan because the project would provide additional medical services to the City;
3. The proposed Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City because the Map Amendment will result in a logical placement of land uses consistent with the overall intent of the General Plan; and
4. The proposed project will not cause environmental damage because the 2794 Pennington Road IS/MND determined that all potential environmental impacts would be less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Live Oak hereby APPROVES the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment re-designating the site identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 006-171- 001) from Smaller-Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Live Oak this 15th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
APPROVED:
Ashley Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
19 Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVE OAK TO REZONE A 0.14- ACRE PROPERTY FROM SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) FOR THE 2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT (APN 06-171-001)
The City Council of the City of Live Oak, State of California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
The City Council determined on May 15, 2024, that, pursuant to Section 15074 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and after full consideration of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) prepared for project, and on the basis of the whole record before it, the IS/MND for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office and Clinic Project should be certified.
SECTION 2:
At its regular meeting of April 16, 2024, the Live Oak Planning Commission recommended that the Live Oak City Council adopt the Ordinance to rezone the 0.14-acre property (APN 06-171-001) from Small Lot Residential (R-2) to Medium Density Residential (R-3).
SECTION 3:
The 0.14-acre property identified as APN 06-171-001, is hereby rezoned from Small Lot Residential (R-2) Zoning District to Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District for consistency with the City of Live Oak General Plan Land Use Designation Map.
SECTION 4:
The City Council finds that the public necessity requires the proposed zone change; that the subject property is suitable to the uses permitted in the proposed zone change; that said permitted uses are not detrimental to the surrounding property; and that the proposed zone change is in conformance with the Live Oak General Plan.
SECTION 5:
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.
SECTION 6:
Within fifteen (15) days from the date of passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall post a copy of it in at least three public places in the City.
20 Introduced and the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Live Oak on the 15th day of May, 2024, and passed and adopted after waiving the second reading at a regular meeting thereafter on the ___ day of ___, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
APPROVED:
____________________________
Ashley Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Nicole Rosser, City Attorney
21 1
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVE OAK APPROVING THE USE PERMIT FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE AND CLINIC LOCATED AT 2794 PENNINGTON ROAD (APN 06-171-001) WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak received an application requesting a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 006-171-001); and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project in conformance with Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the “CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and adopted the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Office and Clinic Project IS/MND and MMP; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and approved the General Plan Land Use Map Amendment redesignating the site identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 006-171-001) from Smaller-Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council introduced and waived the first reading of the ordinance to rezone the 0.14-acre property identified at APN 06-171-001 located at 2794 Pennington Road from Small Lot Residential (R-2) to Medium Density Residential (R-3); and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the Live Oak Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary and recommended City Council approve the use permit for the operation of a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 06-171-001); and WHEREAS, the Live Oak City Council gave notice of public hearing as required by law; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Live Oak City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary; and
WHEREAS, the Live Oak City Council considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that the Live Oak City Council does hereby make the following findings approving the proposed use permit:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and any relevant specific plan, neighborhood plan, or area plan. 22 2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and its associated yards, parking, landscaping and other improvements required by this title and other relevant City standards.
3. The streets serving the site are adequate to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.
4. The site design and the size and design of the building(s) will complement neighboring facilities.
5. The establishment and operation of the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Live Oak City Council hereby APPROVES the use permit to operate a medical office and clinic located at 2794 Pennington Road (APN 006-171-001) subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City in any action brought by a third party to challenge the land use entitlement. In addition, if there is any referendum or other election action to contest or overturn these approvals, the applicant shall either withdraw the application or pay all City costs for such an election.
2. No permits or approvals, whether discretionary or mandatory, shall be considered if the applicant is not current on fees, reimbursement payments, and any other payments that are due.
3. All required easements or rights-of-way for improvements shall be obtained by the developer at no cost to the City. Advance permission shall be obtained from all pertinent property owners and easement holders, if applicable, for any work done within such property or easements.
4. The use of construction equipment shall be restricted to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
Requests for alternative days/times may be submitted in writing to the City Engineer for consideration.
5. Standard dust control methods and designs shall be used to stabilize the dust generated by construction activities.
The developer shall post dust control signage with a contact number of the developer, City staff, and the Feather River Air Quality Management District.
6. The site shall be kept clean of all debris (boxes, junk, garbage, etc.) at all times.
7. Any expansion of this use or substantial modification that results in a change of use shall require an amendment of this Use Permit. Minor Modifications to this Use Permit shall be considered by the Planning Director in accordance with Live Oak Municipal Code Section 17.37.100, and may require notification of surrounding property owners prior to such approval.
8. The project and all proposed improvements shall comply with the City of Live Oak Municipal Code and City Standards unless a specific exception is granted thereto or as approved by the City Engineer.
9. The Use Permit shall expire two years from the date of approval (expires May 15, 2026) and shall become null and void in accordance with Live Oak Municipal Code Section 17.37.090(A), unless the use has been established.
10. All cracked, broken or damaged concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the public right-of-way along the project frontage shall be removed and replaced as required by the City Engineer. 23 11. All on-site utilities shall be privately maintained and connected to public facilities in accordance with City Standards, or as approved by the City Engineer.
12. Any and all work within City of Live Oak rights-of-way shall require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
13. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping and parking lot shade trees within the project area at no cost to the City.
14. As a proposed commercial use, paved parking must be provided per Live Oak Municipal Code §17.25.060.
15. ADA accessible parking must be provided per Live Oak Municipal Code §17.25.070 with an accessible path of travel to the building entrance.
16. The applicant shall install and maintain adequate parking lot lighting per Live Oak Municipal Code §17.26.020.
17. The path of travel from the street right-of-way to the building entrance must be ADA compliant.
18. A defined driveway entrance shall be provided on McElroy Way for the proposed parking lot.
19. The paved surface of McElroy Way shall be widened as necessary to accommodate planned ingress and egress from the proposed parking lot.
20. Provisions shall be made to address the increased runoff from the proposed parking lot.
21. Water conservation measures, including the use of drought tolerant landscaping shall be used.
22. The owner shall maintain the property frontage including all pavements, drainage, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained in good condition.
23. Signs were not reviewed as part of the approval of the proposed project. A sign permit shall be required for the installation of any new signs and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department staff before the issuance of the sign permit and shall be in compliance with sign code.
24. The medical clinic shall meet all County, State, and/or Federal requirements applicable to medical clinics including, but not limited to, the proper handling of any biohazardous and medical waste.
25. The interior lobby and waiting area shall be constructed of adequate size to prevent any patients and/or pedestrians congregating or waiting outside the facility. No loitering is allowed on-site.
26. All interior improvements shall be in accordance with any applicable County, State, and/or Federal requirements.
27. Final improvement plans shall be prepared by a license engineer and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
24 28. Prior to operation of the proposed use, the site shall be inspected and approved by the Sutter County Fire Department, potential site improvements resulting from the inspection shall occur prior to operation of the proposed use.
29. Prior to operation of the proposed use, the site shall be inspected and approved by the City of Live Oak Building Department, potential site improvements resulting from the inspection shall occur prior to operation of the proposed use.
30. The applicant shall obtain a City of Live Oak Business License prior to operation of the proposed use.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Live Oak this 15th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
APPROVED:
Ashley Hernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clarissa Menchaca, City Clerk
25 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use
Permit Project
Prepared for
The City of Live Oak
March 2024
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
LIVE OAK
CALI I ORN IA
26 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page i
March 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1 B. SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.......................................... 4 D. DETERMINATION........................................................................................................... 5 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 6 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 6 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................12 I. AESTHETICS.........................................................................................................13 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .....................................................15 III. AIR QUALITY.........................................................................................................16 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................22 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................24 VI. ENERGY................................................................................................................27 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ........................................................................................29 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.........................................................................32 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ........................................................35 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................. 40 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING..................................................................................43 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES........................................................................................44 XIII. NOISE....................................................................................................................45 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. .............................................................................50 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ..............................................................................................51 XVI. RECREATION........................................................................................................52 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. .............................................................................................53 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ......................................................................57 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS....................................................................59 XX. WILDFIRE..............................................................................................................61 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ....................................................62
27 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic
General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and
Use Permit Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Live Oak
9955 Live Oak Boulevard
Live Oak, CA 95953
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kevin Valente, AICP Planning Director
(530) 695-2112
4. Project Location: 2794 Pennington Road, Live Oak, CA 95953 Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 006-171-001
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Hardeep Mundh
Feather River Health Solutions
9792 Live Oak Boulevard, Suite E
Live Oak, CA 95953
(530) 617-2265
6. Existing General Plan Designation: Smaller-Lot Residential (SLR)
7. Proposed General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
8. Existing Zoning Designation: Small Lot Residential (R-2)
9. Proposed Zoning Designation: Medium Density Residential (R-3)
10. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None
11. Surrounding Land Use and Setting:
The approximately 0.14-acre project site is located at 2794 Pennington Road on the western side of the City of Live Oak, and is identified by APN 006-171-001. The site is currently developed with a 1,650 square-foot (sf) single-family residence, detached garage, and shed. Two trees are located on-site in the backyard. Surrounding existing land uses include Live Oak Memorial Park, the City of Live Oak Corporation Yard, and Rancho Valley Mobile Home Park to the north, northwest, and northeast, respectively, across Pennington Road; the Live Oak Sikh Temple and single-family residences to the west; and single-family residences to the east and south. The site is zoned R-2 and is designated SLR by the City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan.
INITIAL STUDY
MARCH 2024
28 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
12. Project Description Summary:
The 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project (proposed project) is seeking a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and issuance of a Use Permit to convert the existing on-site single-family residence into a medical office and clinic. It should be noted that only the 1,034-sf first floor of the existing building would be renovated for use as a medical clinic. The existing detached garage is currently proposed to remain for storage, but may need to be removed for the proposed parking lot. In addition, the existing shed and two existing on-site trees would be removed as part of the project. The proposed project would include modifications to the building’s interior, including the addition of a registration counter near the front of the building, a 32- inch-wide door to the hallway entrance, and additional kitchen counters for clinical supply storage. Modifications to the building’s exterior would include the conversion of the existing backyard into a parking lot. Other exterior property modifications would include repairing gaps in the existing fencing; constructing a 36-inch-wide walkway from the parking lot to the building’s backdoor; constructing a 36-inch-wide wooden ramp for the front entrance; increasing the dimensions of the existing front entrance walkway; and replacing the existing backyard fence with a new sliding metal door to allow access between the medical clinic and the parking lot. All walkways and ramps associated with the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Project site access would be provided by McElroy Way to the west and would connect to the proposed parking lot.
13. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1:
The Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC), and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians have each previously submitted requests to the City to be consulted during the review process for proposed projects within the City’s jurisdiction, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1. As such, the City provided each of the tribes notification regarding the proposed project, consistent with Section 21080.3.1 requirements, on December 6, 2023. The City did not receive a request for consultation from the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, UAIC, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians in regard to the proposed project.
B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the analysis with this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND):
1. Cal Recycle. SWIS Facility Detail: Recology Ostrom Road LF Inc. (58-AA-0011). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/733?siteID=4075.
Accessed December 2023.
2. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.
December 2022.
3. California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. July 2022.
4. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 2023.
5. California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. 29 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed December 2023.
6. California Department of Conservation. Reported California Landslides Database.
Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/landslides. Accessed December 2023.
7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed December 2023.
8. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway System Map.
Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed December 2023.
9. City of Live Oak. 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planning-department/city-of-live-oak-2030- general-plan-and-environmental-impact-report. Accessed December 2023.
10. City of Live Oak. 2030 General Plan. Available at:
https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planning-department/city-of-live-oak-2030- general-plan-and-environmental-impact-report. Accessed December 2023.
11. City of Live Oak. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. November 2009.
12. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.
Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&s ite_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+A ND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29. Accessed December 2023.
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Effective 03/23/1984. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed December 2023.
14. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=live+oak.
Accessed December 2023.
15. Sutter County Sherriff. Live Oak Substation. Available at:
https://www.suttersheriff.org/divisions/operations-division/live-oak-substation. Accessed December 2023.
16. Sutter County. Sutter County Groundwater Management Plan. March 2012.
17. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed December 2023.
18. Weather Spark. Average Weather in Live Oak California, United States. Available at:
https://weatherspark.com/y/1183/Average-Weather-in-Live-Oak-California-UnitedStates-Year-Round. Accessed December 2023. 30 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
31 2 794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:
D I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing rther is required.
Kevin Valente, AICP, Planning Director
Printed Name
Date ' "
City of Live Oak
For
March 2024
32 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This IS/MND identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Where the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures are prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval. The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with approval of the project.
In 2010, the City of Live Oak completed a comprehensive General Plan Update1 and an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR2 is a program-level EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the Live Oak 2030 General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts associated with the Live Oak 2030 General Plan to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, applicable portions of the General Plan and General Plan EIR are incorporated by reference as part of this IS/MND.
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A detailed description of the proposed project, including project location and setting, surrounding land uses, project components, and required City of Live Oak approvals, is provided below.
Project Location and Setting
The 0.14-acre project site, identified by APN 006-171-001, is located at 2794 Pennington Road in the City of Live Oak, California (see Figure 1). The site is currently developed with a 1,650-sf single-family residence, as well as a detached garage and shed. Two trees are located on-site in the backyard. Surrounding existing land uses include Live Oak Memorial Park, the City of Live Oak Corporation Yard, and Rancho Valley Mobile Home Park to the north, northeast, and northwest, respectively, across Pennington Road; the Live Oak Sikh Temple and single-family residences to the west; and single-family residences to the east and south (see Figure 2). The site is currently designated as SLR and zoned R-2.
Project Components
The proposed project would include the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit to convert the existing on-site single-family residence into a medical office and clinic.
The following sections describe the proposed site modifications, access and circulation, utilities, and required approvals for the proposed project.
1 City of Live Oak. 2030 General Plan. Available at: https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planningdepartment/city-of-live-oak-2030-general-plan-and-environmental-impact-report. Accessed December 2023. 2 City of Live Oak. 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.liveoakcity.org/departments/planning-department/city-of-live-oak-2030-general-plan-andenvironmental-impact-report. Accessed December 2023. 33 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
34 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
35 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Exterior Modifications
As previously mentioned, the project site is currently developed with a 1,650-sf single-family residence, as well as a detached garage and shed. Exterior modifications would include the removal of the existing shed and conversion of the backyard into a parking lot (see Figure 3). The existing detached garage is currently proposed to remain, but may need to be removed for the proposed parking lot. Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis, this IS/MND assumes the garage would be removed.
Pursuant to the standard requirements set forth in Section 17.25.630 of the Live Oak Municipal Code (LOMC), a medical office requires one vehicle parking space per 200 sf. Because the proposed project would only modify the first floor of the existing single-family residence and the second floor would remain as is, the medical office building would be limited to 1,034 sf. Therefore, the proposed project would require five vehicle parking spaces. Additionally, two ADA-compliant 36-inch-wide walkways would be installed at the western and front facades of the building. The western walkway would facilitate access between the parking lot and the building’s back door, and would join with a new ADA-compliant wooden ramp. The ramp would feature protective side rails and would allow access to the building entrance, as well as an emergency access door. The existing path at the front of the building would be widened to comply with ADA requirements. A new sliding gate and metal door would replace the existing backyard fence to allow access to the parking lot during business hours. Additionally, gaps in the backyard fencing would be repaired for privacy purposes. Existing on-site shade trees would be removed in the proposed parking lot.
Finally, fencing gaps in the backyard would be repaired to further enhance the privacy of the proposed clinic.
Interior Modifications
The existing on-site residence is a two-story building with three bedrooms and one bathroom.
Two bedrooms and the bathroom are located on the first story, in addition to a living room and a kitchen. The remaining bedroom is located upstairs and would not be used for clinic purposes, as only the 1,034-sf first floor of the existing building would be renovated for use as a medical clinic.
The proposed project would include the addition of a registration counter at the front of the building to greet patients, a 32-inch-wide door to an internal hallway entrance to increase patient privacy, and additional counters in the existing kitchen for clinical supply storage.
It should be noted that all existing hallways and doors are ADA-compliant, and, thus, additional interior modifications would not be required.
Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be provided by McElroy Way, an alleyway that runs north-south to the west of the project site. McElroy Way would provide access to the proposed sliding fence gate and parking lot. In addition, the walkway at the front of the building would be widened to 36 inches wide and connect to the pedestrian sidewalk associated with Pennington Road to the north of the project site. The proposed parking lot would be constructed in compliance with Chapter
17.25 of the LOMC, which establishes landscaping, screening, and circulation standards for parking facilities. For example, Section 17.25.060 of the LOMC requires all parking areas and site access points to be surfaced with asphalt, cement, or other material approved by the City’s Public Works Director.
36 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Figure 3
Concept Site Plan
Legend
Location of proposed
sliding gate
I
I
I
~ I
~
0.. ~
u...
0 LI.J ~
I
r
i '
!
' ' ' ' ' i
' ' !
I 12-v"
I ~ u
~
l!:!
IB'-0"~
I
u
'\ 10'-I' <;>
I
' - \ EXISTI~ 111
Q BH,TRJCAL SERV1CE B.EC,TRIGAL. ME'TER
\
'
5' "' N
SIDEV'tALK
51.00'
>L
~
l!:!
' \,,
',,,, fl: ~-;- I0'-4'
' "' ,_
3'-4
T "' 10'-2'
EXISTNG STRUCTu=!E
104:l~
□ HVAC
21'14 PENNIN6TON ROAD TO REMAIN
18'-I'
l
I
I
t
SITE ADDRESS 2794 PENNINGTON RD.
LIVE OAK, CA 95953
APN, ooe-111-001 WD - 0 •
~ • • :,..1' DIAL TOLL JlRBB
(~
~
:~7!"::!
BEFOREYOUDlG
TlfS IS NOT A BOIK).ART' SIR.'EY. THl5 5 NOT A~~
CffA~ORAP>PCa.f-W'. 1H151SAREf'RE:e(TATION
l~~:~Tkl6~:~~Bfn£~
5'-1'
48.4"
18"
I 96"
OR OBrAIIED B'f FUl.lG ~.OR~ ON RalC, REGlR:>,
ORreT.-..tt:DEtl'M:~,Cr6EHT"t'5)0N Jl.Yl2.Xl2'
nE.Allllt:lRS'lJWNfil...Y~TW.T>U
~EEVERIFED IM TtEFIB.D.
0 SCALE l"in.= 10 ft.
10 OV'!NER 4 APPLICANT
HARDEEP MIJNDH
20 '11'!2 LIVE OAK BL YD., SUITE E
ADA Parki ng LIVE OAK, GA '15'15:l
II
, I/ l ,,,/ Pn. 5:lObll.2265
6'-3'
I
I
:J25q
~~- ~:.:· r~-11 - I
Pa rki ng '-----------------'•
96"
~
5'-0
/EJ 6ARA6E TO REMAIN
16'-4'
,--1~
\
I
Parking
(EJ SHED TO
Sh~de Tree I RF c,,cMn,n=n
18"
Shade tre.farking I t=t.VC -1•- . ...I, -•- ,_., ) Pa rking ~ ID I .,<11a--=FF1¥-.F=--<>.- !>--.=-="---=-=,___,._I here _ _ ___ ... \...,.. _______________ --t
51.00' F""-OPe""-TY 1-INe _____.--
bPI ANQ CQY§86@E 68161 TOTAL LOT AREA---------5,qe,s ,
TOTAL ACREAGE ±0.14 Aa-eo
TOTAL COYERA6E l,3b/l ,
TOTAL P!RGENT OF WVERA6E 22.8 SI; WVERA6E - FOOTPRINTS
E R IK JENS DESIGN & DRAFTING @ 5129 EAGLE CFOSSING DRIVE ■ MARYVILLE TENNESSEE 37801 530.632.0007 ■ ejensosq1 design.c001
37 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Utilities
The existing on-site residence is currently provided water and sanitary sewer services through the City of Live Oak, and electricity and natural gas services through the Pacific Gas and Electric company (PG&E). All stormwater runoff would flow north to the City’s gutter and drainage facilities associated with Pennington Road, similar to existing conditions.
General Plan Amendment
The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site from SLR to MDR, in order to ensure that the land use of the site is consistent with the proposed zoning designation. According to the City’s General Plan, the MDR land use designation allows residential land uses to be built out at a density of eight to 15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). As such, the General Plan Amendment could allow for a maximum of two units to be built within the 0.14-acre project site, an increase in one unit as compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed project would include approval of a Use Permit to allow for the existing single-family residence to be converted into a medical office and clinic. As such, the analysis included within this IS/MND is focused on the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the project site as a medical office and clinic, as currently proposed.
Rezone and Use Permit
The proposed project would require City approval of a Rezone from R-2 to R-3. Development standards for all uses constructed within the R-3 zone are set forth in Section 17.02.050 of the LOMC. Pursuant to Table 17.02.020, included in Section 17.02.050 of the LOMC, the proposed professional office use is allowed within the R-3 zone upon City approval of a Use Permit.
Therefore, the proposed project is requesting approval of a Use Permit to convert the on-site single-family residence to a medical office and clinic.
Site Plan and Design Review
In 2011, the City of Live Oak adopted the Citywide Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote future development within the City that would be well-designed and respectful of the development patterns and characteristics present in the community. The provisions of the Design Guidelines are applicable to most development projects within the City, including the proposed project. The Citywide Design Guidelines establish recommendations related to site planning, landscaping, and parking and circulation.
Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Live Oak:
• Adoption of the IS/MND;
• Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • Approval of a General Plan Amendment;
• Approval of a Rezone;
• Approval of a Use Permit; and
• Site Plan and Design Review.
38 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
39 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a,b. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. According to the Live Oak 2030 General Plan, scenic vistas within the region include farmland surrounding the City and the Sutter Buttes. Such resources are not located in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, according to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the project site is not located within the vicinity of an officially designated State Scenic Highway.3
Scenic resources, including rock outcroppings or historically significant buildings, do not exist on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Thus, no impact would occur. c. The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, garage, and shed.
The site is generally bound by Pennington Road to the north, the Live Oak Sikh Temple and single-family residences to the west, and single-family residences to the east and south. Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project site is located in an urbanized area, the relevant threshold is whether the proposed project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality rather than whether the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
The project site is currently designated SLR by the City’s General Plan and is zoned R-2.
While the proposed project would require the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Use Permit, and Site Plan and Design Review, the proposed project would consist of minor exterior modifications, including paving the existing backyard and improving the existing fencing. As such, the current setting of the project site and surrounding area would not change with approval of the proposed project. In addition, the 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
Accessed December 2023.
40 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
proposed project would comply with all applicable development standards set forth in Section 17.02.050 of the LOMC, including, but not limited to, parking, landscaping, and screening.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, a garage, and a shed, and, thus, contains existing sources of light and glare associated with such, including, but not limited to, headlights on cars and trucks using the on-site driveway, exterior light fixtures, and interior light spilling through windows. In addition, the site is surrounded by existing development that currently generates similar light and glare in the area. Therefore, while the proposed project would include minor modifications to the project site, such modifications are not anticipated to add new sources of light and glare to the site beyond what currently occurs under existing conditions.
The proposed project would also be required to comply with all applicable standards from the LOMC designed to minimize impacts resulting from new sources of substantial light or glare. Such policies include, but are not limited to, Section 17.26.030, which requires the City to minimize obtrusive light by shielding or recessing exterior lighting so that direct glare is confined to the site, and by requiring light for development to be directed downward to minimize overspill and glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way.
Additionally, Section 17.25.110 requires that parking areas shall meet similar lighting standards. Finally, Section 17.26.020 of the LOMC requires outdoor parking lots to incorporate lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for security and safety. The City of Live Oak would ensure project compliance with all applicable sections of the LOMC, including the foregoing standards, during the Site Plan and Design Review process.
Compliance with the aforementioned standards would ensure that the light and glare created by the proposed project would be consistent with the levels of light and glare currently emitted in the surrounding area and would not adversely affect the existing residences surrounding the site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a lessthan-significant impact related to creating a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 41 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a,e. Currently, the project site is developed with a single-family residence, a garage, and a shed. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is designated as “Urban and Built Up Land.”4 As such, the project site does not contain, and is not located adjacent to, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. As a result, the project would result in no impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to a non-agricultural use. b. According to the General Plan EIR, the City does not contain any lands under a Williamson Act contract. In addition, while the proposed project would include a Rezone from R-2 to R-3, neither zoning designation is intended for agricultural use. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). As noted above, the project site is currently zoned R-2. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and the project would not otherwise result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Thus, no impact would occur. 4 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 2023. 42 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Live Oak is within the boundaries of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and under the jurisdiction of the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD). Federal and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for six common air pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, due to the potential for pollutants to be detrimental to human health and the environment. The criteria pollutants include particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead. At the federal level, the South Sutter portion of the FRAQMD’s jurisdiction has been designated as severe nonattainment under the 1997 and 2008 National AAQS for eight-hour ozone, as well as nonattainment under the 2015 National AAQS for eight-hour ozone. Aside from the South Sutter portion of the FRAQMD’s jurisdiction, the remaining areas are designated as attainment for the federal eight-hour ozone standard. The Yuba City-Marysville portion of the FRAQMD’s jurisdiction is designated as a maintenance area under the National AAQS for PM with diameters less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Under the California AAQS designations, the South Sutter portion of the FRAQMD’s jurisdiction is under nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, while the remaining portion of the jurisdiction is classified as nonattainmenttransitional. FRAQMD’s entire jurisdiction is designated as nonattainment-transitional for eight-hour ozone under the California AAQS, and as nonattainment for PM with diameters less than 10 microns (PM10). FRAQMD’s jurisdictional area is designated as attainment or unclassified for all other National and California AAQS.
Due to the nonattainment designations, FRAQMD, along with the other air districts in the SVAB region, is required to develop plans to attain the federal and State AAQS for ozone and particulate matter. The attainment plans currently in effect for the SVAB are the 2013 Revisions to the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Ozone Attainment Plan), PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-designation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan), and the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), including triennial reports. In addition to the foregoing plans related to attainment statuses in the SVAB, the FRAQMD is also party to the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2015 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan, which was specifically developed to cover the Planning Areas of Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, and Feather River. The air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control measures have worked, and show how air pollution 43 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
would be reduced. In addition, the plans include the estimated future levels of pollution to ensure that the area would meet air quality goals.
Nearly all development projects in the SVAB region have the potential to generate air pollutants that may increase the difficulty of attaining federal and State AAQS. Therefore, for most projects, evaluation of air quality impacts is required to comply with CEQA. In order to evaluate ozone and other criteria air pollutant emissions and support attainment goals for those pollutants that the area is designated nonattainment, FRAQMD has developed the Indirect Source Review Guidelines, which includes recommended thresholds of significance, including mass emission thresholds for construction-related and operational ozone precursors and PM10, as the area is under nonattainment for ozone and PM10.
The FRAQMD’s recommended thresholds for the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX specify that emissions during construction of proposed projects shall not exceed 4.5 tons per year (tons/year) or 25 pounds per day (lbs/day). For operational emissions, the thresholds of significance for ROG and NOX are 25 lbs/day.
The FRAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for ROG and NOX, as well as PM10 are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
FRAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds
(tons/year)
Construction
Thresholds
(lbs/day)
Operational
Thresholds
(lbs/day)
NOX 4.5 25 25
ROG 4.5 25 25
PM10 N/A 80 80
Source: FRAQMD, June 7, 2010.
If the proposed project’s emissions exceed the pollutant thresholds presented in Table 1, the project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Construction Emissions
The proposed project does not include major construction activities, such as building construction. Rather, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be limited to minor interior building modifications, paving of a new parking lot, and exterior building modifications intended to provide access to the proposed parking lot. It should be noted that the existing detached garage could be removed as part of parking lot construction, and the two trees and existing on-site shed would be removed; however, such demolition activities would be considered minor. Therefore, the proposed project would generate minimal emissions and further analysis of construction-related emissions is not warranted. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans during project construction.
In addition, the FRAQMD recommends that all projects implement the following standard best management practices:
1. Implement the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
44 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
2. Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed FRAQMD Regulation Ill, Rule 3.0, Visible Emissions limitations (40 percent opacity or Ringelmann 2.0).
3. The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained prior to and for the duration of on-site operation.
4. Limiting idling time to 5 minutes.
5. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
6. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of throughtraffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites.
7. Portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, may require California Air Resources Board (CARB) Portable Equipment Registration with the State or a local district permit. The owner/operator shall be responsible for arranging appropriate consultations with the CARB or FRAQMD to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
Compliance with the measures above would further reduce emissions during construction.
Operational Emissions
The FRAQMD provides screening criteria to assess a project’s potential to exceed the applicable thresholds for NOx, ROG, and PM10 in Table 5-1 of the FRQAMD’s Indirect Source Review Guidelines.5 Table 5-1 of the guidelines provides the size at which various projects could be assumed to exceed the FRAQMD’s applicable thresholds. As presented therein, medical office building uses less than 50,000 sf would be assumed to generate emissions below the FRAQMD’s applicable thresholds. The proposed medical office building would be 1,034 sf, which is well below the smallest square footage listed for medical office building in the FRAQMD’s screening criteria. Thus, due to the size of the proposed project, operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to generate emissions in excess of the FRAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would not contribute to the FRAQMD’s nonattainment status for criteria pollutants.
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
Due to the nonattainment designations discussed above, FRAQMD, along with other air districts in the SVAB region have developed and adopted plans to attain federal and State AAQS. A project would be considered to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, an applicable air quality plan if the project would be inconsistent with the emissions 5 Feather River Air Quality Management District. Indirect Source Review Guidelines. [pg. 10]. June 7, 2010. 45 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
inventories contained in the air quality plan. Projects that are inconsistent with attainment plans may result in cumulatively considerable contributions to regional violations of federal or State AAQS.
As presented above, the proposed project is anticipated to result in emissions that would be below the FRAQMD thresholds of significance for criterion pollutants during construction. As such, the proposed project would have the potential to result in a less than cumulatively considerable increase in ozone precursor emissions, which the project area is currently in nonattainment.
Conclusion
Based on the above, operations of the proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of any criteria pollutants and would not conflict with an applicable air quality plan nor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and a lessthan-significant impact related to air quality would occur. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site would be the single-family residences to the east, south, and west of the project site.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized CO emissions and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood. CO emissions are particularly related to traffic levels.
The FRAQMD does not recommend specific methodologies for use in the analysis of localized CO emissions. However, several nearby air districts maintain recommended screening protocols to determine whether a proposed project would have the potential to result in excess concentrations of CO. According to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, emissions of CO are generally of less concern than other criteria pollutants, as operational activities are not likely to generate substantial quantities of CO. Additionally, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), which has jurisdiction over a portion of the SVAB, has a screening level for localized CO impacts. According to the PCAPCD screening levels, a project could result in a significant impact if the project would result in CO emissions from vehicle operations in excess of 550 lbs/day. As discussed further in Section XVII, 46 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Transportation, of this IS/MND, project operations would not be expected to increase traffic in the area, and, thus, would not result in CO emissions that exceed the PCAPCD screening level. Therefore, based on the guidance of the SMAQMD and PCAPCD, which both have authority over a portion of the SVAB, are adjacent to the FRAQMD, and have similar land use and topography patterns to the FRAQMD, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO and impacts related to localized CO emissions would be less than significant.
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk.
The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. As such, the project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations.
Typically, construction-related activities result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. However, as noted above, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be limited to internal and external building modifications, minor demolition, and paving a small parking lot. As a result, construction activity would be minor, and would not generate substantial emissions, including TACs. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of localized CO or TACs during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Emissions such as those leading to odor have the potential to adversely affect people.
Emissions of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emissions that have the potential to cause dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in questions ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.
47 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.
Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.
Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses, and operations of the proposed project are not anticipated to produce any objectionable odors.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.
However, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be minor and all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB’s InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Considering the short-term nature of construction activities, as well as the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Similarly, because construction activities would be minor, the generation of significant amounts of dust would not occur. Furthermore, as noted previously, the proposed project would be required to implement the FRAQMD’s standard mitigation measures, including implementation of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Measures included in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan would act to reduce construction-related dust, and could include: ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within project site.
The FRAQMD accepts any air quality-related complaints at the District Office. While unlikely, should operational emissions of dust become a nuisance, citizens may submit a complaint to the District Office and the FRAQMD would require dust reduction measures as necessary. Thus, project operations would not generate significant amounts of dust that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 48 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, shed, and detached garage. In addition, the project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing development. Due to the developed nature of the site and surrounding area, the site does not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species.
Additionally, the proposed project would consist of minor modifications to the first floor of an existing single-family residence and paving of a new on-site parking lot, which would require removal of the existing on-site shed and two existing on-site trees, as well as potential removal of the detached garage. The current setting of the project site and vicinity would generally not change with approval of the proposed project.
However, the two exiting on-site trees proposed for removal could provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of State and federal laws. Thus, in the event that such species occur on-site during the breeding season, project construction activities could result in an adverse effect to species protected under the MBTA.
Therefore, the proposed project could have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 49 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey of all areas associated with construction activities, and a 100-foot buffer around these areas, within 14 days prior to commencement of construction if construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). The results of the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City of Live Oak. If nests are not found during the survey, further measures shall not be required. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be established. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be maintained until the fledglings are capable of flight and become independent of the nest, to be determined by a qualified biologist. Once the young are independent of the nest, further measures are not necessary.
b,c. Wetlands, riparian habitat, and other aquatic resources do not currently exist on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur.
d. The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, shed, and detached garage. In addition, the project site is located in an urbanized area, and has commercial development to the west, single-family residences to the east, south, and west, and public facilities to the north. The developed nature of the project site and surrounding area discourages use of the site as a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
e. The project site contains two shade trees, which would be removed in order to construct the proposed parking lot. The City of Live Oak has not adopted a tree protection ordinance; however, General Plan Policy Biological-2.1 mandates the preservation of native oak trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of six inches or greater, and all other trees with a dbh of 30 inches or greater. The two on-site shade trees are not oak trees and do not meet the dbh requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and the project’s impact would be less than significant. f. The City of Live Oak has not adopted a habitat conservation plan, natural conservation community plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The City will be a participant of the Yuba-Sutter Regional Conservation Plan, but preparation of the Plan is still in progress, and a tentative date of completion is not known. Because an approved habitat conservation plan does not exist, the project would result in no impact.
50 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Discussion
a. Historical resources are features that are associated with the lives of historically important persons and/or historically significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics.
In order to determine whether structures are historically significant, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) eligibility criteria are used. The NRHP and CRHR eligibility criteria include the following:
(1)/(A) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
(2)/(B) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
(3)/(C) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
(4)/(D) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition, the resources must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The resource must also be at least 45 years old, except in exceptional circumstances.
Currently, the project site is developed with a single-family residence, a detached garage, and a shed. According to Sutter County property records, the existing on-site residence was constructed in 1934, and would therefore be at least 45 years old. However, age alone is not sufficient to qualify a building as historic. While the existing single-family residence would meet age criteria, the building does not meet any of the foregoing NRHP/CRHR eligibility criteria. Additionally, the existing on-site residence is not listed on the NRHP or CRHR.
Furthermore, the proposed project includes minor interior and exterior improvements intended to bring the residence into code compliance. The only demolition associated with the proposed project would include the removal of the existing detached shed and garage. 51 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Similarly to the existing single-family residence, neither the detached shed nor the garage would qualify as a historical building. Therefore, because the proposed project would not remove or significantly alter a historic building, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b,c. The General Plan EIR determined prehistoric sites would likely be located along a waterway, such as the Sutter Butte Canal or the Feather River, neither of which are located near the project area. The project site is currently developed and has therefore been subject to substantial ground-disturbing activities. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be minor, and would only include surface improvements. Due to the developed nature of the project site and the surrounding area, substantial past ground disturbance on-site, and the nature of the proposed construction activities, the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact to archaeological resources.
Nonetheless, if previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Therefore, impacts could be considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
V-1. If historic or archeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities associated with the proposed exterior modifications shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
52 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
V-2. If human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, a professional archaeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance, all such work shall be halted immediately, and the developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department and the appropriate Federal and State agencies of the discovery. The archaeologist shall notify the City of Live Oak Community Development Department and the Sutter County Coroner (per §7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the applicant does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or most likely descendent must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the Live Oak Community Development Department, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
53 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. The proposed project would include minor interior improvements to the existing on-site residence. Therefore, any increase in energy demand from the proposed project would be primarily from the proposed medical office uses, as well as energy demand from the minor construction activities and transportation energy associated with the proposed clinic operations.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would include interior improvements to the existing single-family residence, minor exterior building modifications, demolition of the existing on-site shed and detached garage, removal of two trees, and paving of the proposed parking lot. While the proposed project could result in a temporary increase in demand for energy, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be relatively minor. As such, the temporary increase in energy use during construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce any temporary increase in demand.
PG&E currently provides electricity and natural gas to the project site and would continue to do so following the implementation of the proposed project. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of a medical office use, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electronic equipment, appliances, security systems, and more. The proposed project would create usage of the building by more people as compared to the number of people using the building as a single-family residence, which could increase energy demand from lighting, HVAC, water use, etc. However, because the proposed project would consist of minor interior improvements to an existing building, the project would not involve changes to the HVAC or other existing building features requiring energy and, thus, would not be expected to substantially increase the building energy usage beyond existing conditions. Electricity supplied to the project by PG&E would comply with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.
In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the employees and patients using 54 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
the clinic. While the proposed project would increase traffic compared to existing levels, and, thus, increase energy use associated with transportation, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy.
Further discussion of the proposed project’s impacts related to transportation is provided in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not be anticipated to increase overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) beyond applicable threshold levels.
Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 55 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
ai-aiv. The City of Live Oak is located in an area of California with relatively low seismic activity, and the proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault to the project site is the Cleveland Hills Fault, which is located approximately 16 miles northeast of the City of Live Oak. 6 In addition, the project
site is not located within the vicinity of any steep slopes that would be subject to landslide risk, nor is the site within an area requiring special investigation for landslides or liquefaction hazards. Pursuant to the California Landslides Database, the site is not located within a designated seismic hazard zone for liquefaction or landslides.7 In addition, the General Plan EIR analyzed the risk of landslides within the project area and determined that the overall risk of landslides in the planning area is low. Thus, liquefaction or landslides would not pose a hazard on site.
Because the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, strong seismic ground shaking would not occur on-site. In addition, the proposed project would modify an existing building, rather than develop any additional structures on-site. All interior and exterior on-site improvements would be required to be constructed in compliance with all 6 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed December 2023. 7 California Department of Conservation. Reported California Landslides Database. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/landslides. Accessed December 2023. 56 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
applicable State, local, and federal regulations, such as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Issues related to erosion and degradation of water quality during construction are discussed in Section X: Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, under question ‘a.’ As noted therein, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. The proposed project’s potential effects related to landslides and liquefaction are discussed under question ‘a’ above. Potential effects related to lateral spreading and subsidence/settlement are discussed in detail below.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. As discussed above, the project site does not contain any slopes, nor is the site located near any open faces that would be considered susceptible to lateral spreading. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading to pose a risk to the proposed parking lot is relatively low.
Subsidence/Settlement
Subsidence is the settlement of soils of very low density generally from either oxidation of organic material, desiccation and shrinkage, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years, and is a common consequence of liquefaction. As discussed above, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. In addition, the General Plan EIR determined that the risk of subsidence within the planning area would be less-than-significant with compliance with the CBSC.
Given that the proposed project would include minor interior and exterior site modifications built in accordance with all local and State standards, the potential for subsidence to pose a risk at the project site is low.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence/settlement. Compliance with standard construction regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction, subsidence, or settlement, and would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Expansive soils are those possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements, and building foundation areas must be properly drained. The project site is currently developed, and significant geological hazards have not occurred at the site under current 57 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
existing conditions. The proposed project includes minor modifications that would adhere to all applicable State and federal requirements. Therefore, substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with expansive soils would not occur, and a less-thansignificant impact would result. e. The proposed project is currently connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f. The General Plan EIR notes that a records search at the University of California Museum of Paleontology indicated that fossil remains have not been found within the Live Oak planning area. However, the occurrence of vertebrate fossil remains in sediments found in rock formations throughout the cities of Yuba City, Davis, and Woodland, suggest that the potential exists for uncovering additional similar fossil remains during ground disturbing activities.8
While known paleontological resources do not exist within the project site and were not uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the existing on-site development, the potential exists for previously undiscovered resources to be found onsite during construction. Thus, any ground-disturbing activity associated with the proposed project, such as the construction activities associated with development of the proposed parking lot, could have the potential to disturb or destroy such resources, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
VII-1. Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within the vicinity of the discovery shall cease. The City of Live Oak Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, at the developer’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian shall submit to the City of Live Oak Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the preceding work has occurred. 8 City of Live Oak. Draft 2030 General Plan EIR [pg 4.7-15]. 2004. 58 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a,b. GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHGs are inherently considered cumulative.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to the project would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
Recognizing the global scale of climate change, California has enacted several pieces of legislations in an attempt to address GHG emissions. Specifically, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, and more recently Senate Bill (SB) 32, have established statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. Accordingly, the CARB has prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan for California (Scoping Plan), which was approved in 2008, and updated in 2017 and 2022.
The Scoping Plan provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and achieve the emissions reductions targets required by AB 32. In concert with statewide efforts to reduce GHG emissions, air districts, Counties, and local jurisdictions throughout the State have implemented their own policies and plans to achieve reductions in line with the Scoping Plan and emissions reductions targets, including AB 32 and SB 32.
The FRAQMD has not yet adopted thresholds of significance to assess potential impacts resulting from project-related GHG emissions. However, other air districts within California, such as PCAPCD, have adopted quantitative emissions threshold that may be used in the analysis of GHG emissions from proposed land use projects. Because the PCAPCD has jurisdiction over a portion of the SVAB, in which the City of Live Oak is located, is adjacent to the FRAQMD, and has similar land use and topography patterns to the FRAQMD, the proposed project’s GHG emissions have been compared to PCAPCD quantitative emissions thresholds.
59 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
For project construction, the PCAPCD established a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr.
Should construction of a proposed project emit GHG emissions in excess of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, the project would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.
The PCAPCD’s operational thresholds begin with a screening emission level of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr. Any project below the 1,100 MT CO2e/yr threshold is judged by the PCAPCD as having a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions within the PCAPCD and, thus, would not conflict with any State or regional GHG emissions reduction goals. Projects that would result in emissions above the 1,100 MT CO2e/yr threshold would not necessarily result in substantial impacts, if certain efficiency thresholds are met. The efficiency thresholds, which are based on service populations or square footage, are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
PCAPCD Operational GHG Efficiency Thresholds of Significance Residential (MTCO2e/capita) Non-Residential (MTCO2e/1,000 sf) Urban Rural Urban Rural
4.5 5.5 26.5 27.3
Source: Placer County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Handbook. 2017.
The PCAPCD further advises that, regardless of emissions efficiency, should a project result in operational emissions in excess of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, the project would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.
Construction
Construction-related GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change, as global climate change is inherently a cumulative effect that occurs over a long period of time and is quantified on an annual basis. The thresholds presented above are primarily intended for use in analyzing operational GHG emissions, with the exception of the Bright Line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, which serves as an operational and construction emissions threshold.
Pursuant to PCAPCD guidelines, a general office project less than 756,170 sf would be assumed to generate emissions below the PCAPCD’s the Bright Line threshold. The proposed project would not include major construction activities such as building construction; rather, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be limited to minor interior building modifications, demolition of the existing shed and detached garage, removal of two trees, paving of a new parking lot, and exterior building modifications to provide access to the proposed parking lot. In addition, given that the total square footage of the existing residence’s first floor (i.e., the portion of the building proposed for modification) is 1,034 sf, the minor modifications to the existing building would not be expected to exceed applicable GHG emission thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would generate minimal emissions and further analysis of constructionrelated emissions is not warranted.
Based on the above, construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions.
I I
I I
60 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Operations
The PCAPCD has developed operational screening criteria to aid in determining if GHG emissions from development projects would exceed the PCAPCD thresholds of significance. The operational GHG screening criteria provides a conservative indication of whether a development project could result in potentially significant impacts. According to PCPACD, if a project is below the screening level identified for the applicable land use type, GHG emissions from operation of the project would be below the De Minimis Threshold and, thus, would result in a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions. The screening criterion for operational GHG emissions associated with general office uses is 83,180 sf.
9 The proposed medical office building would be 1,034 sf, which is well below the square footage listed in the PCAPCD’s screening criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that exceed the PCAPCD thresholds of significance.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be considered to result in the generation of GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. 9 Placer County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook [pg. 25]. November 21, 2017. 61 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion
a. The potential exists for limited amounts of blood or other bodily fluids to occur at the project site as a result of operations associated with the proposed medical clinic. However, blood and bodily fluids are covered under an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard known as Bloodborne Pathogens (Standard 1910.1030). Any medical waste treatment, storage, containment, transport, and disposal associated with the proposed project would be regulated. Operations would be required to comply with all requirements of OSHA Standard 1910.1030, including, but not limited to, establishing an Exposure Control Plan, implementing engineering and work practice controls, use of personal protective equipment, and proper storage, labeling, containment, and disposal of potential hazardous substances and materials. Full “red-bag” containment and disposal operations would be required for all hazardous material and fluid disposal, including needles, gowns, and fluid clean-up. It should be noted that all hazardous materials protocol would be provided under tenant-controlled procedures. The contained fluids would be collected by a licensed third-party vendor who would dispose of the appropriately packaged waste at a certified disposal facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and the use of other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) 62 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials.
As discussed previously, the project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, as well as a detached shed and garage. A review of historical land use data indicates that the site has not been subject to past agricultural uses; therefore, potentially hazardous materials associated with agricultural uses, such as pesticides, would not be anticipated to occur on-site.
However, for buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and related materials) and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestoscontaining material” unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. Asbestos is the name for a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals that are considered to be “fibrous” and, through processing, can be separated into smaller and smaller fibers. The fibers are strong, durable, chemical resistant, and resistant to heat and fire. They are also long, thin, and flexible, such that they can be woven into cloth. Because of the above qualities, asbestos was considered an ideal product and has been used in thousands of consumer, industrial, maritime, automotive, scientific, and building products. However, later discoveries found that, when inhaled, the material caused serious illness.
Although the exact age of the existing detached shed and garage is unknown, given the age of the existing single-family residence, the potential exists that the detached shed and garage were also constructed prior to 1980, and asbestos-containing materials could be present in such structures. Thus, the proposed project could potentially expose construction workers to asbestos during demolition of the structures, and a significant impact could occur.
Federal guidelines define lead-based paint (LBP) as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has one milligram of lead per square centimeter or greater. Lead is a highly toxic material that may cause a range of serious illnesses, and, in some cases, death. In buildings constructed after 1978, the presence of LBP is unlikely. Structures built prior to 1978, and especially prior to the 1960s, are expected to contain LBP. Similar to the above, given the age of the existing single-family residence, the potential exists that the detached shed and garage were also constructed prior to 1978, and LPB could be present in such structures. Thus, the proposed project could potentially expose construction workers to LBP during demolition of the on-site structures and a significant impact could occur.
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction activities associated with the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur. 63 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IX-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete an asbestos and lead survey. The completed asbestos and lead survey shall be submitted to the City of Live Oak for review and approval. If asbestos-containing materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestoscontaining materials or lead-containing materials shall not be required. If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or leadcontaining materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work plan to the City for review and approval. The City has the right to defer the work plan to the Sutter County Environmental Health Services Department for additional review.
c. The project site is located approximately 0.20-mile southeast of Luther Elementary School, and therefore is located within a quarter mile of a school. However, the proposed project would not involve any operations that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials or emissions into the environment. Additionally, any contractors involved with the minor building improvements would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials during construction activities. Compliance with all applicable State and local regulations would ensure that hazardous and toxic materials are not released during construction activities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to annually develop an updated Cortese List. The components of the Cortese List include the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker data management system and hazardous materials sites, including leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) cleanup sites. Pursuant to the SWRCB’s lists, one LUST occurs within a 1,000-foot radius of the project area.10 Located at 9988 Broadway Street, approximately 876 feet to the east of the 10 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=live+oak. Accessed December 2023. 64 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
project site, the LUST cleanup site case was closed as of November 18, 2011. In addition, the project site is not located on or near any hazardous waste sites identified on the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the proposed project would not involve any operations that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Based on the above, the proposed project is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. e. The nearest airport to the project site is Sutter County Airport, which is located approximately 10.8 miles south of the site. As such, the project site is not located within two miles of any public airports and does not fall within an airport land use plan area. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and a no impact would occur. f. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the City’s existing roadway system. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site. Because the project site is limited to 0.14 acres, any construction equipment used on-site would be small and would not obstruct local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles by way of Pennington Road and McElroy Way, and would not interfere with evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams and would not conflict with the Sutter County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed project includes minor modifications to an existing on-site residence. While medical uses were not anticipated for the site, buildout of the project with urban uses was anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, development of the site and associated effects on emergency evacuation routes has generally been anticipated by the General Plan and the City. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies.
As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND.
As noted therein, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
11 In addition, according to the General Plan EIR, portions of Live Oak that are urbanized are not at high risk for wildland fires.12 The project site is located 11 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed December 2023. 12 City of Live Oak. City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan EIR [pg. 4.15-12]. 2004. 65 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
within an urbanized area and, thus, is not at high risk of wildfire. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire, and the impact would be lessthan-significant. 66 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be limited to minor improvements to the existing single-family residence and conversion of the backyard into a parking lot, which would require surface-level ground-disturbing activities. During the construction activities associated with the proposed parking lot, topsoil would be exposed.
As such, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality downstream. However, the construction period for the proposed project is anticipated to be significantly shorter and on a much smaller project site than the majority of the development projects anticipated by the City. In addition, the City of Live Oak Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) contains Minimum Control Measure No. 3: Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control, which enforces the reduction of pollutants in construction stormwater runoff from projects that disturb areas of one or more acres. The total acreage of the project site is approximately 0.14 acres. Furthermore, following the minimal (approximately 3,078-sf) site preparation activities that would occur on-site, the parking lot would be paved, which would limit the amount of erosion that could occur on-site. As such, the minimal construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards.
Similarly, the proposed project would not involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on the project site 67 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality. However, the addition of impervious surfaces on the site would result in a slight increase in urban runoff, which could contain pollutants if the runoff comes into contact with pollutant sources, such as vehicle fluids, on parking surfaces.
The Live Oak 2030 General Plan includes the following policies relevant to the preservation of water quality:
• Police Water-1.1: New development shall incorporate drainage system design that emphasizes infiltration and decentralized treatment to the greatest extent feasible. • Policy Water-1.3: The City will require development to use best management and design practices to reduce stormwater runoff levels, improve filtration to replenish groundwater, and reduce pollutants close to their source. The City will require new development to use permeable surfaces for hardscape wherever possible.
Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be interspersed with vegetated areas that allow for infiltration of stormwater.
The final design of the proposed project would be reviewed and approved by the City, which would ensure that the proposed design complies with the applicable policies with respect to vegetated areas that allow for infiltration of stormwater.
In addition, City storm drainage infrastructure exists on Pennington Road in the project vicinity. The existing storm drainage infrastructure was constructed according to applicable City standards, and has the existing capacity to handle the slight increase in stormwater runoff associated with the proposed parking lot.
Finally, Sections 12.01.032 and 12.01.034 of the LOMC requires property owners to maintain and repair curbs, gutters, and sidewalks so that the aforementioned facilities remain operational and safe. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable standards and regulations set forth by the City of Live Oak in the LOMC, thus ensuring that operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to water quality standards.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality during construction or operation, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur. b,e. The City of Live Oak relies entirely on groundwater from the East Butte Groundwater Subbasin, which is part of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin.13 Sources of groundwater recharge include the Sacramento River, Feather River, Bear River, and deep percolation of precipitation. Pursuant to the Sutter County Groundwater Management Plan, the Department of Water Resources does not consider any of the subbasins in Sutter County to be in overdraft conditions,
14 and the general depth to groundwater has remained
somewhat stable since the 1940s. The Live Oak 2030 General Plan commits the City of Live Oak to participation in the Sutter County Groundwater Management Plan. 13 City of Live Oak. Draft 2030 General Plan EIR: Hydrology and Water Resources [pg 4.5-18]. 2004. 14 Sutter County. Sutter County Groundwater Management Plan. March 2012. 68 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
According to the Live Oak 2030 General Plan, although water demand is expected to increase substantially over time, the City’s projected total water demand in the year 2030 would be approximately 0.4 percent of the East Butte Subbasin’s total storage capacity.
As such, the local groundwater basin has adequate capacity to meet water demand for the foreseeable future, and the proposed project would not have a long-term substantial adverse effect on groundwater levels or supply in the region. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable policies set forth in the Live Oak 2030 General Plan, including Policy Water-1.1 and 1.3 as listed above.
The proposed project consists of modifications to the first floor of a single-family residence, and would not increase water demand on-site. Therefore, the buildout of the proposed project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or a significant interference with groundwater recharge. Thus, the proposed project would result in a lessthan-significant impact. ci-iii. Implementation of the proposed project would involve modifications to the existing on-site single-family residence; removal of the existing detached shed, garage, and two trees; conversion of the existing backyard into a parking lot; and construction of ADA-compliant access ramps. Exterior site modifications would increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the project site. However, the project site is located within an urbanized area of the City and is provided stormwater drainage services by the City’s existing infrastructure. Because the project site is only 0.14-acre and the proposed parking lot represents 3,078 sf (0.07 acres) of the site, increased runoff from new impervious surfaces could be accommodated by the City’s existing drainage system. In addition, the proposed project would not involve any operations that would increase the amount of runoff from the site from existing conditions.
Based on the above, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or create or contribute to runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the impact would be less-thansignificant. civ. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 603950001C, the project site is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) or otherwise located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. 15 Therefore,
the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would occur. d. As discussed under question ‘civ’ above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. The project site is not located in proximity to a coastline and would not be potentially affected by flooding risks associated with tsunamis.
Seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project, as the project site is not located adjacent to a large closed body of water. Based on the above, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact would occur.
15 Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Effective 03/23/1984. Available at:
https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. 69 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure, alter land use to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. The proposed project would include altering the current land use from residential to a medical office building, primarily through a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and accompanying Use Permit. The proposed changes would be implemented through modifications to the first floor of the existing single-family residential building. Given that a significant portion of the surrounding uses includes single-family residences, such as to the east, south, and west, the proposed project would not isolate an existing land use or create a physical barrier within an established community. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. As noted throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Use Permit, and Site Plan and Design Review. The General Plan Amendment could allow for a maximum of two units to be built within the
0.14-acre project site, an increase in one unit as compared to existing conditions.
However, as discussed previously, the Use Permit would allow for the existing singlefamily residence to be converted into a medical office and clinic. The General Plan EIR anticipated urban uses on-site, and the proposed project includes minor modifications to an existing on-site residence. While medical uses were not anticipated for the site, buildout of the project with urban uses was anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed uses are allowable under a Use Permit. In addition, as discussed throughout this IS/MND, mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce any potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable Live Oak 2030 General Plan goals and policies, as well as all applicable standards set forth in the LOMC. Thus, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. 70 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion
a,b. The Live Oak 2030 General Plan determined that known mineral resource zones do not exist within the City of Live Oak. In addition, the General Plan EIR affirms that mineral resources are not currently being mined or produced in the planning area. Therefore, the project site does not contain mineral resources and the construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources. Furthermore, mineral extraction activity on the project site would be incompatible with the existing single-family residence, as well as with the existing and proposed land use and zoning designations for the site. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. 71 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. The following sections present information regarding sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site, the existing noise environment, and the potential for the proposed project to result in noise impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below:
• Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to dB in this analysis are Aweighted unless noted otherwise. • Average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq): The Leq corresponds to a steady-state Aweighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour).
• Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours.
• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The maximum sound level over a given time-period. • Median Sound Level (L50): The sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time over a given time-period.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) hours weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of ten prior to averaging.
Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing single-family residences located to the east, south, and west. 72 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Standards of Significance
The City of Live Oak establishes an exterior noise level criterion of 60 dB Leq or less within daytime outdoor activity areas of residential land uses and 45 dB Leq or less within nighttime outdoor activity areas. Additionally, the City requires that cumulative noise exposure from exterior noise sources within noise-sensitive dwellings not exceed 45 dB Ldn.
Chapter 9.30 of the City of LOMC defines noise regulations which prohibit, “unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises from all sources, subject to police power.” Item E of Section 9.30.020, Offensive Noise Standards, of the LOMC prohibits any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects, or to operate any equipment such as a pile driver, pneumatic hammer, power shovel, or any other construction-type device between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Construction of the proposed project would comply with the Noise Control Ordinance’s prohibited hours.
The City of Live Oak General Plan establishes maximum noise limits for construction activities of 75 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 65 dBA between 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM (see Table 3).
Table 3
Stationary Noise Source Standards
Noise Level
Descriptor
Noise Level Standards, dBA
Outdoor Activity Areas
Daytime
(7 AM to 10 PM)
Outdoor Activity Areas
Nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Hourly Leq, dB 60 45
Lmax, dB 75 65
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum noise level.
Source: Live Oak 2030 General Plan: Noise Element.
In addition, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) has developed guidance for determining increases in traffic noise. Therefore, in addition to the thresholds established by the City, as presented above, increases in the ambient noise environment due to the proposed project were evaluated using the criteria developed by FICON.
Although the FICON guidelines were originally developed for aircraft noise impacts, the noise increase thresholds are generally considered appropriate for evaluation of noise increases at noise sensitive uses such as single-family residences. The FICON increase significance criteria are provided in Table 4, below.
Table 4
FICON Noise Exposure Increases for
Determining Level of Significance
Noise Exposure without Project Potential Significant Impact < 60 dB CNEL 5 dB or more
60-65 dB CNEL 3 dB or more
>65 dB CNEL 1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 2000. 73 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Impact Analysis
The following sections provide an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with operation, construction, and traffic noise of the proposed project.
Construction Noise
The proposed project would include minor site modifications, such as interior improvements associated with the conversion of the first floor of the existing single-family residence to medical office uses; exterior modifications, including ADA-compliant access ramps; demolition of the existing detached shed and garage; removal of two trees; and conversion of the existing backyard to a parking lot. Such activities would be temporary, and would not be anticipated to generate noise that would exceed any applicable thresholds. In addition, as discussed above, Item E of Section 9.30.020, Offensive Noise Standards, of the LOMC prohibits any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects, or to operate any equipment such as a pile driver, pneumatic hammer, power shovel, or any other construction-type device between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the Noise Control ordinance’s prohibited hours.
Provided that project construction activities do not occur during restricted hours, and that noise-generating equipment is equipped with sound-dampening or noise-reducing features where appropriate, construction noise associated with the project would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.
Operational Noise
Medical offices and clinics are not typically associated with the generation of substantial noise. Operation of the proposed project would not include noise incompatible with the adjacent existing residential uses. The proposed project includes minor building modifications, and, therefore, is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations. Similarly, the proposed parking lot would not substantially increase noise beyond current on-site conditions. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur with regard to on-site operational noise.
Based upon the criteria presented in Table 4, where existing traffic noise levels between 60 and 65 dB Ldn, at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. According to Table 4.4-7 of the General Plan EIR, the traffic noise level on the segment of Pennington Road between Luther Road to N Street, on which the project site is located, is 64.9 dB Ldn at 50 feet from the centerline and features an average daily traffic of 5,800 cars. Generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 5.0 dB, which is considered to be the threshold for a significant increase pursuant to the FICON. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would be expected to generate 36 additional trips per day, which would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along area roadways. Accordingly, the proposed project would not substantially increase traffic volumes on local roadways and, thus, would not substantially increase traffic noise in the project vicinity.
Overall, the proposed project would not result in operational noise increases that would result in significant effects on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. 74 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Live Oak 2030 General Plan or the LOMC. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 5, which was developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures.
Table 5
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
mm/sec in/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.15 to
0.30 0.006 to
0.019
Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage
of any type
2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
2.5 0.10
Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings
5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people
in buildings (this agrees with
the levels established for
people standing on bridges and
subjected to relative short
periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of walls, flexible
ceiling treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural” damage
10 to 15 0.4 to
0.6 Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people subjected
to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural
damage
Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.
75 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
As shown in the Table 5, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.
As previously discussed, the proposed project would include minor exterior and interior modifications, as well as the conversion of the existing backyard to a parking lot, which would include removal of the existing detached shed and garage, and removal of the two existing on-site trees. Such minor construction activities would be temporary, and would not be anticipated to generate vibration levels that would exceed any applicable thresholds. In addition, project construction activities would be temporary, and would not occur during restricted hours, as set forth by Item E of Section 9.30.020 of the LOMC.
The majority of sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibration are located further than 26 feet from construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet, construction vibration is not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. However, the western façade of the single-family residence to the east of the project site is within 26 feet of the existing backyard. Therefore, the proposed conversion of the backyard to a parking lot could expose sensitive receptors to construction vibrations that exceed applicable levels.
Conclusion
Groundborne vibration associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature and, pursuant to Section 9.30.020 of the LOMC, would occur during normal daytime working hours. However, because vibration levels generated from on-site project construction activities could exceed the threshold for damage to residential structures, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XIII-1. During construction activities associated with the proposed project, any compaction required within 26 feet of existing structures adjacent to the project site shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers rather than vibratory compactors/rollers. The aforementioned criteria shall be included in the project improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of the improvement plans.
c. The nearest airport to the site is the Sutter County Airport, which is located approximately
10.8 miles south of the site. The site is not covered by an existing airport land use plan.
Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. Thus, no impact would occur. 76 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include exterior and interior modifications to convert the existing on-site single-family residence into a medical office, including removal of the existing detached shed, garage, and two trees, and development of a parking lot. Because the proposed project would not include any residential land uses, implementation of the project would not result in population growth. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the General Plan Amendment could allow for a maximum of two units to be built within the
0.14-acre project site, which would be an increase in one unit as compared to existing conditions. However, as previously discussed, the proposed project would include approval of a Use Permit to allow for the first floor of the existing single-family residence to be converted into a medical office and clinic. As such, the proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in new housing and would not create an increase in population growth. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and no impact would occur. b. The proposed project would modify the existing on-site single-family residence. Such modifications would convert the building from residential uses to medical office uses.
However, the on-site building represents a very small fraction of the existing housing market in the City and surrounding area, and new housing could be found within the existing supply. As such, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people or housing, and no impact would occur.
77 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a-e. The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, as well as a detached shed and garage. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would include minor interior and exterior modifications to the existing building, removal of the detached shed, garage, and two trees, and conversion of the existing backyard to a parking lot. Because the proposed project would operate as a medical office, future development of the site would not result in population growth that could result in increased demand on existing schools, parks, or recreational facilities.
Live Oak is served by the Live Oak Fire Department (LOFD), which is run by the Sutter County Fire Services under a contract with the City. The fire station in Live Oak is located at 2745 Fir Street, which is approximately 660 feet southeast of the project site. The LOFD recommends a maximum response time of four minutes. Given the project site’s proximity to the station on Fir Street, the LOFD could reasonably respond to incidents at the project site within the four-minute timeframe. The Sutter County Sherriff’s Department would provide police protection services at the project site. The Live Oak Substation is located at 2755 Fir Street, and the station is staffed by seven patrol deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant.16 Operation of the proposed medical office uses would not be anticipated to involve activities that would lead to a significant increase in the demand for fire or police protection services from what currently occurs in the project area. Thus, the provision of new or physically altered fire protection or police protection facilities would not be required in order to adequately serve the proposed project.
Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, outside of what has been previously anticipated. Therefore, a no impact would occur.
16 Sutter County Sherriff. Live Oak Substation. Available at: https://www.suttersheriff.org/divisions/operationsdivision/live-oak-substation. Accessed December 2023. 78 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a,b. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department manages five parks: Live Oak Memorial Park; Pennington Ranch Park; Oak Tree Park; Date Street Park; and Live Oak Riverfront Park. Live Oak Memorial Park is the closest park to the project site, located approximately 125 feet north of the project site, across Pennington Road. The proposed project would include interior and exterior modifications to an existing on-site single-family residence, removal of the existing detached shed, garage, and two trees, and conversion of the existing backyard to a parking lot. Because the proposed project would not include any residential land uses, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, does not include recreational facilities, and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Based on the above, the proposed project would result in no impact related to recreational facilities.
79 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. The City of Live Oak’s General Plan and General Plan EIR still used Level of Service (LOS) for purposes of determining consistency with adopted General Plan goals and policies related to LOS. However, the law has changed with respect to how transportationrelated impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Therefore, pursuant to SB 743, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, and LOS is no longer used for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT. The General Plan anticipated urban uses for the project site, which was then considered during the General Plan EIR. Given that the proposed project would include modifications to the existing on-site building, the proposed project would be consistent with the findings contained within the General Plan EIR. As discussed therein, all City roadways would remain operating at an acceptable LOS with the exception of a portion of Kola Street from N Street to State Route (SR) 99, which is not located near the project site. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable transportation policies and programs as amended pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR. Overall, the proposed project would not result in substantial alterations to the existing roadway network in the immediate project vicinity and would not substantially increase the population or associated levels of traffic.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The following provides a discussion of the proposed project’s potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and offstreet paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Bicycle facilities include the following:
• Bike Paths (Class I) – Paved trails that are separated from roadways; • Bike Lanes (Class II) – Lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs;
• Bike Routes (Class III) – Designated roadways for bicycle use by signs or other markings, and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists; and • Separated Bikeway (Class IV) – Exclusive to the use of bicycles similar to a Class II facility but includes a separation between the bike facility and through vehicular 80 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
traffic. Separation facilities may include flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. Class IV facilities also allow for two-way bicycle traffic.
The proposed project would include improvements to the walkway at the northern boundary of the project site that connects the existing sidewalk to the entrance of the building. In order to meet ADA requirements, the front walkway would be widened to 36 inches using concrete or asphalt. The widened walkway would connect to a new ADAcompliant wooden ramp that would feature protective side rails and would lead to the building entrance, as well as to an emergency access door. In addition, the proposed project would include an ADA-compliant walkway to provide patients safety and access between the proposed parking lot and the front door. The aforementioned modifications would improve pedestrian facilities within the project site; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
The nearest existing bicycle facility to the project site is a Class II bikeway located along Pennington Road that transitions into a Class III bikeway further east. In addition, the streets surrounding the project site, such as P Street, include Class II bike lanes.
Development of the proposed project would not preclude the construction of any planned bicycle facilities, and the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing bicycle facilities. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to bicycle facilities.
Transit Services and Facilities
Yuba Sutter Transit operates a bus route between the City of Yuba City and City of Marysville area, and operates within the City of Live Oak three times a week. A bus stop located near the Live Oak Memorial Park, north of the project site across Pennington Road, is part of the Yuba Sutter Transit route. The proposed project would follow all applicable policies established in the General Plan and the proposed project would not substantially increase the number of average trips anticipated by the City. Therefore, existing transit services and facilities are anticipated to have sufficient capacity to accommodate potential transit users associated with the proposed project, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur related to transit services and facilities.
Conclusion
Given the above, adequate transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be available for the proposed project and the project would not conflict with any existing or planned transportation facilities in the project vicinity. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.
However, the City has not yet established any standards or thresholds regarding VMT.
Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and nonmotorized travel. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which includes screening thresholds to identify when a lead agency may screen out VMT impacts.17 The OPR recommendations include the following screening criteria:
17 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 81 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
• Office or residential projects not exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita;
• Projects (including office, residential, retail, and mixed-use developments) proposed within half a mile of an existing major transit stop or within a quarter of a mile of an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor; • Projects proposing 100 percent affordable residential development in infill locations; and
• Projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day.
Any project that meets any of the above criteria would be considered to result in a lessthan-significant impact related to VMT.
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published in the 10th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (2017). A trip rate of
34.80 average daily trips (ADT) per 1,000 sf, based on the ITE “Medical-Dental Office” land use (ITE Land Use Category #720), was applied to the proposed project. Based on the ITE trip rate, the proposed medical office building would be expected to generate an average of 36 trips per day. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the OPR screening criteria for projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day, and the project would not be considered to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Furthermore, the project site is located in close proximity to alternative forms of transportation, including bus routes. Access to multiple forms of public transportation would ultimately encourage residents to use alternative means of transportation to and from the project site and, as a result, reduce VMT associated with the proposed project.
Based on the above, impacts to transportation are not expected to be substantial, and the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c,d. The proposed project would not include design features that would affect traffic safety, nor involve any incompatible uses. Access to the project site would be provided by McElroy Way to the east of the project site, which would connect to the proposed parking lot, and a widened walkway and ADA-compliant ramp would connect to the front door. The entrance to the parking lot would be designed in accordance with State and local standards, such that emergency vehicle access would be sufficient for the project site. In addition, the existing on-site single-family residence is set back from Pennington Road, such that visibility for motorists would not be hindered. During project construction, public roads in the vicinity would remain open and available for use by emergency vehicles and other traffic. Finally, the proposed parking lot would be constructed in compliance with all applicable City standards.
While the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the site from SLR to MDR and a Rezone to from R-2 to R-3, the proposed land use and zoning designations would be similar to the existing land use and zoning designations of the project site. The proposed project includes minor modifications to the existing building.
Therefore, development of the project site with urban uses has been generally anticipated by the City, and impacts related to traffic hazards and emergency access associated with the proposed project were previously analyzed within the City’s General Plan EIR. 82 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
83 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion
a,b. Tribal cultural resources are generally defined by PRC 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, the potential for unrecorded Native American resources to exist within the project site is low based on existing environmental conditions, and Native American resources have not been identified within the vicinity of the project site.
Under AB 52, formal consultation with California Native American Tribes must be conducted by lead agencies for proposed projects. In particular, lead agencies are required to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process if a Native American tribe has first requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in their geographic area. In addition, because the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment, SB 18 project notification letters were required to be sent to a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the project area, as determined by the NAHC.
As such, on December 6, 2023, in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18, consultation letters were sent to the following Native American tribes: United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria; Ione Band of Miwok Indians; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; Mechoopda Indian Tribe; Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians; and the Tsi Akim Maidu.
To date, the City has not received a request for consultation from the aforementioned tribes.
Nevertheless, the possibility exists that construction of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource if previously unknown cultural resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Thus, a potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources could occur. 84 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
85 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion
a. The proposed project includes minor site modifications to convert the first floor of an existing on-site single-family residence to a medical office and clinic. In addition, the proposed project includes conversion of the existing backyard to a parking lot, which would require removal of the existing on-site shed, detached garage, and two existing on-site trees. However, such minor site modifications would not require the relocation or expansion of water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. All utilities for the proposed project would be provided by way of existing infrastructure located within the existing project site and vicinity.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. b. The City of Live Oak relies entirely on groundwater from the East Butte Subbasin.
According to the Live Oak 2030 General Plan, while water demand is expected to increase substantially over time, the projected total water demand in the year 2030 would be roughly 0.4 percent of the Easte Butte Subbasin’s total storage capacity. The proposed project includes minor interior and exterior site modifications to convert the on-site existing residence to a medical office; therefore, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase demand on the City’s water supply beyond current on-site conditions.
As such, the local groundwater basin has adequate capacity to meet water demand for the foreseeable future, and development of the proposed project would not have a long86 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
term substantial adverse effect on groundwater levels or supply in the region. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. Within the City of Live Oak, sewer service is provided by the City’s Department of Public Works. All of the wastewater flow is conveyed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which has a capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd). Based on projections in the City’s Wastewater Master Plan, the WWTP is currently operating at 1.2 mgd.18 The proposed project consists of modifications to the first floor of an existing single-family residence, and would not increase the demand for wastewater treatment due to the project site’s existing on-site sewer usage. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. d,e. Waste collection in the City of Live Oak is coordinated through a joint powers agreement with Yuba County. The Recology Ostrom Road Landfill in Yuba County is the primary destination for solid waste collected in Live Oak. The landfill is permitted to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day and has an estimated remaining capacity of 39,223,000 cubic yards (90 percent). The expected closure date of the facility is December 2066.19 Given that the project site is currently developed, the proposed project would not result in an increase in solid waste generation as compared to current site conditions. In addition, as previously discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND, any medical waste generated by the proposed project would be appropriately contained during disposal. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 8.05, Refuse Collection and Disposal, of the LOMC. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste would occur as a result of the proposed project. 18 City of Live Oak. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan [8-1]. November 2009. 19 Cal Recycle. SWIS Facility Detail: Recology Ostrom Road LF Inc. (58-AA-0011). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/733?siteID=4075. Accessed February 2020. 87 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XX. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High FHSZ.20 In addition, according to the General Plan EIR, portions of Live Oak that are urbanized are not at high risk for wildland fires.21 The project site is located within an urbanized area and, thus, is not at high risk of wildfire. Furthermore, the proposed improvements would include a new ADA-compliant wooden ramp featuring an emergency access door, which would improve evacuation processes in the event of a fire.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks or hazards related to wildfires, and no impact would occur. 20 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed December 2023. 21 City of Live Oak. City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan EIR [pg. 4.15-12]. 2004. 88 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while potential exists for nesting birds and raptors to be located in the two on-site trees proposed for removal, Mitigation Measure IV-1 would ensure that any impacts related to nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, the project site is currently developed and does not contain any known historic or prehistoric resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or prehistoric resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2 would ensure that, in the event that historic or prehistoric resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities, such resources are protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
Considering the above, with implementation of the mitigation measures included herein, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of Live Oak could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, LOMC standards, and other applicable local and State regulations. 89 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2024
Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, development of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in the City of Live Oak, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable Live Oak 2030 General Plan policies, LOMC standards, other applicable local and State regulations, and mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section XIII, Noise, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, which cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, and hazardous materials. As such, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to human beings and, thus, the project’s impact would be less-than-significant.
90 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
– April 2024
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require Lead Agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid significant environmental impacts of a project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that mitigation measures imposed by the City are completed at the appropriate time in the development process.
The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project are listed below along with the party responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure, the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure, the milestones for implementation and monitoring, and a sign off that the mitigation measure has been implemented. 91 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL CLINIC AND OFFICE PROJECT
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Biological Resources
IV (a). Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
IV-1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey of all areas
associated with construction activities, and a
100-foot buffer around these areas, within 14
days prior to commencement of construction if
construction occurs during the nesting season
(February 1 through August 31). The results of
the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be
submitted to the City of Live Oak. If nests are not
found during the survey, further measures shall
not be required. If active nests are found, a nodisturbance buffer around the nest shall be established. The buffer distance shall be
established by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The buffer shall be
maintained until the fledglings are capable of
flight and become independent of the nest, to be
determined by a qualified biologist. Once the
young are independent of the nest, further
measures are not necessary.
Qualified
Biologist
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
Within 14 days
prior to
construction, if
construction
would
commence
during the
nesting season
from February 1st
to September
30th.
Cultural Resources
V (b-c). Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; or
disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
V-1. If historic or archeological resources are
encountered during subsurface excavation
activities, all construction activities associated
with the proposed exterior modifications shall
cease until a qualified archaeologist determines
whether the resource requires further study. The
City shall require that the applicant include a
standard inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of
this requirement. Any previously undiscovered
Qualified
Archaeologist
California
Historical
Resources
Information
System
If historic or
archeological
resources are
encountered
during
subsurface
excavation
activities
92 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL CLINIC AND OFFICE PROJECT
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
resources found during construction shall be
recorded on appropriate California Department
of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a
qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant
cultural resources consist of, but are not limited
to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts
or features, including hearths, structural
remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined to be significant
under CEQA, the City and a qualified
archaeologist shall determine whether
preservation in place is feasible. Such
preservation in place is the preferred mitigation.
If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified
archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data
recovery plan for the resource. The
archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate
technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive
written report and file it with the appropriate
information center (California Historical
Resources Information System), and provide for
the permanent curation of the recovered
materials.
V-2. If human remains, or remains that are
potentially human, are found during
construction, a professional archaeologist shall
ensure reasonable protection measures are
taken to protect the discovery from disturbance,
all such work shall be halted immediately, and
City of Live
Oak
Community
Development
Department
If human
remains, or
remains that are
potentially
human, are found
93 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL CLINIC AND OFFICE PROJECT
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the developer shall immediately notify the
Community Development Department and the
appropriate Federal and State agencies of the
discovery. The archaeologist shall notify the
City of Live Oak Community Development
Department and the Sutter County Coroner (per
§7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code).
The provisions of §7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the
California Public Resources Code, and
Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the
Coroner determines the remains are Native
American and not the result of a crime scene,
then the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will
designate a Native American Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of
the Public Resources Code). The designated
MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to
the property is granted to make
recommendations concerning treatment of the
remains. If the applicant does not agree with the
recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can
mediate (§5097.94 of the Public Resources
Code). If an agreement is not reached, the
qualified archaeologist or most likely
descendent must rebury the remains where they
will not be further disturbed (§5097.98 of the
Public Resources Code). This will also include
either recording the site with the NAHC or the
appropriate Information Center, using an open
space or conservation zoning designation or
easement, or recording a reinternment
document with the county in which the property
Sutter County
Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
during
construction
94 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 5 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL CLINIC AND OFFICE PROJECT
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume
within the no-work radius until the Live Oak
Community Development Department, through
consultation as appropriate, determines that the
treatment measures have been completed to
their satisfaction.
Geology and Soils
VII (f). Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VII-1. Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological
resources, all work within the vicinity of the
discovery shall cease. The City of Live Oak
Community Development Department shall be
notified, and the resources shall be examined by
a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, at
the developer’s expense, for the purpose of
recording, protecting, or curating the discovery
as appropriate. The archaeologist,
paleontologist, or historian shall submit to the
City of Live Oak Community Development
Department for review and approval a report of
the findings and method of curation or
protection of the resources. Work may only
resume in the area of discovery when the
preceding work has occurred.
City of Live
Oak
Community
Development
Department
Qualified
Archaeologist
or
Paleontologist
Discovery of
unique
paleontological
resources during
construction or
grading activities
95 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
IX (b). Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
IX-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for onsite structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk
Assessors to complete an asbestos and lead
survey. The completed asbestos and lead survey
shall be submitted to the City of Live Oak for
review and approval. If asbestos-containing
materials or lead-containing materials are not
discovered during the survey, further mitigation
related to asbestos-containing materials or
lead-containing materials shall not be required.
If asbestos-containing materials and/or leadcontaining materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a
work plan to demonstrate how the on-site
asbestos-containing materials and/or leadcontaining materials shall be removed in accordance with current California
Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA)
Administration regulations and disposed of in
accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior
to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site
structures. The plan shall include the
requirement that work shall be conducted by a
Cal-OSHA registered asbestos and lead
abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8
CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding
asbestos and lead training, engineering
controls, and certifications. The applicant shall
submit the work plan to the City for review and
approval. The City has the right to defer the
work plan to the Sutter County Environmental
Health Services Department for additional
review.
California
Occupational
Health and
Safety (CalOSHA)
Administration
Sutter County
Environmental
Health
Services
Department
Prior to issuance
of a demolition
permit for onsite structures
96 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic and Office Project 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program April 2024
Noise
XIII (b). Would the project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
XIII-1. During construction activities associated with
the proposed project, any compaction
required within 26 feet of existing structures
adjacent to the project site shall be
accomplished by using static drum rollers
rather than vibratory compactors/rollers. The
aforementioned criteria shall be included in
the project improvement plans for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to
approval of the improvement plans.
City Engineer During
construction
activities
Tribal Cultural Resources
XVIII
(a,b).
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American Tribe, and that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k) or a
resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2. See Mitigation Measures V-1
and V-2
See Mitigation
Measures V-1
and V-2
97 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
8 April 2024
Kevin Valente
City of Live Oak
9955 Live Oak Boulevard
Live Oak, CA 95953
[email protected]
COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 2794 PENNINGTON ROAD MEDICAL CLINIC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND USE PERMIT PROJECT, SCH#2024030291, SUTTER COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 8 March 2024 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project, located in Sutter County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.
The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as 98 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic - 2 - 8 April 2024 General Plan Amendment, Rezone,
and Use Permit Project
Sutter County
required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018
05.pdf
In part it states:
Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.
This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.
The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.
II. Permitting Requirements
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act 99 2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic - 3 - 8 April 2024 General Plan Amendment, Rezone,
and Use Permit Project
Sutter County
Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage 100
2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic - 4 - 8 April 2024
General Plan Amendment, Rezone,
and Use Permit Project
Sutter County
under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.
For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].
Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
101
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 3
703 B STREET | MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-5556
(530) 821-8401
www.dot.ca.gov
April 8, 2024
GTS # 03-SUT-2024-00253
SCH # 2024030291
Mr. Kevin Valente
Senior Planner
City of Live Oak
9955 Live Oak Boulevard
Live Oak, CA 95953
2794 Pennington Road Medical Clinic General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit Project
Dear Mr. Valente:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the project referenced above. We reviewed this local development for impacts to the State Highway System (SHS) in keeping with our mission, vision, and goals, some of which includes addressing equity, climate change, and safety, as outlined in our statewide plans such as the California Transportation Plan, Caltrans Strategic Plan, and Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.
The project is located on 2794 Pennington Road, less than 0.25 mile west on State Route 99 in the City of Live Oak, California. The project is approximately 0.14-acre identified by APN 006-171-001. The site is currently developed with a 1,650 square-foot single-family residence, detached garage, and shed. Two trees are located on-site in the backyard. Surrounding existing land uses include Live Oak Memorial Park, the City of Live Oak Corporation Yard, and Rancho Valley Mobile Home Park to the north, northwest, and northeast, respectively, across Pennington Road; the Live Oak Sikh Temple and single-family residences to the west; and single-family residences to the east and south. The site is zoned R-2 and is designated SLR by the City of Live Oak 2030 General Plan. Based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration package provided, Caltrans has the following requests and recommendations:
Highway Operations / Traffic Safety
• Please clarify whether this is a general clinic or a dentistry. • Please explain the total number of employees for the facility. • A traffic impact study should be completed to quantify the impacts to the SHS. 102
Mr. Kevin Valente, Senior Planner
April 8, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Please provide our office with copies of any further actions regarding this proposal. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on any changes related to this development.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or require additional information, please contact Satwinder Dhatt, Local Development Review Coordinator, by phone (530) 821-8261 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
GARY ARNOLD, Branch Chief
Local Development Review and Complete Streets
Division of Planning, Local Assistance, and Sustainability California Department of Transportation, District 3
103
City of Live Oak
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
Title: Adopting Mobile Vendor and Sidewalk Vendor Ordinances Contact Information: Mark Scott, Interim City Manager, and Nicole Rosser, City Attorney Background: This report is the same report re-agendized from the May 1, 2024, City Council meeting.
The City of Live Oak does not currently have ordinances regulating the issuance of permits for mobile vendors (food trucks or other motorized vehicles) or sidewalk vendors (non-motorized carts or stands). In years past, there has been some concern about mobile or sidewalk vendors having unfair advantage over fixed base ("bricks and mortar") food businesses. Staff is unaware of any current ordinance or policy that prohibits food trucks or sidewalk vendors, nor is there any enabling ordinance or policy.
Staff has received requests from parties who own food trucks for permits to operate in Live Oak. Staff is also aware that there have been sidewalk vendors, from time to time, who have operated on a limited basis. 104
Analysis: This item has been placed on the May 1, 2024 City Council agenda for discussion and possible direction to staff on how to proceed in developing an ordinance or policy. There is not a proposed ordinance or policy that is being proposed at this time.
Attached is an advisory memo from City Attorney Nicole Rosser that explains that under current law, a city is required to allow operation of food trucks and sidewalk vendors subject to conditions that relate generally to "time, place and manner." In fact, California law goes so far as to suggest some of the areas where conditions of approval may be applied.
As example, such businesses may be limited in their operation by conditions requiring:
* Locating:
*20 feet from any intersection or driveway
*a specified distance from parks or schools except by invitation *a specified distance from any other mobile or sidewalk vendor * Operating:
*Only during specified hours of the day
*Without loudspeakers or amplified music
*Within specific zone districts of the City
*Without disrupting sidewalk clearance or street traffic *Serving customers so that they do not need to enter the street for service *In compliance with State and County public health and safety regulations *With a valid City business license and County public health permits California law changed during the COVID shutdown period to make it easier for small businesses of this sort to operate. The attached ordinance from the City of Indio offers insights into the application of the new law to mobile vendors, stationary sidewalk vendors, and mobile sidewalk vendors. Within the operating conditions in the law, there is some discretion available to a City Council. There are also some conditions that are not discretionary. For instance, I believe State law requires a city to allow sidewalk vendors to operate in residential zones at least during the typical business hours of the day. After staff receives City Council input on areas of concern to the Council, staff will do further research into what the City may or may not restrict.
Fiscal Impacts: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City that is affected by discussing this matter, While there could be fiscal impacts on fixed base food or retail businesses if enacted, there are no immediate impacts from discussing the policy itself.
Recommendation: City Council discuss the options legally available to the City in adopting ordinances to provide for permitting of food trucks and sidewalk vending businesses to operate in the City of Live Oak, and to provide staff with direction on drafting such local law.
Attachments:
105
Memo re Mobile Vendors
City of Indio Municipal Code - Sidewalk Vendors and Vending Vehicles 106
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Scott
FROM Nicole Rosser
DATE: April 9, 2024
RE: MOBILE FOOD VENDORS/SIDEWALK VENDING
OVERVIEW:
The discussion of mobile food vendors consists of two applicable subsects to this general area: Mobile Vending and Sidewalk Vending. The City of Live Oak does not have any specific ordinances related to Mobile Vending or Sidewalk Vending. There is a definition in the zoning ordinance for Mobile Food Vending and a limitation of locations of where they can be permitted upon review by the City, but no actual regulations of hours of operations in residential zones, special event use, and prohibited materials.
MOBILE VENDING:
Mobile Vending is defined as the selling, advertising, promoting, offering or soliciting to sell, convey, barter, or trade of food, products, goods and merchandise from a mobile food facility (MFF) or a mobile vending facility (MVF).
MFF means any vehicle used in conjunction with a commissary or other permanent food facility upon which food is sold/distributed at retail. It includes, cars, trucks, vans, or any vehicle or device (i.e. trailer) that is pushed, pulled, carried, towed or otherwise transported by a motor vehicle or devise and equipped to store, prepare, serve, advertise, promote, offer, convey, barter, trade, solicit, and/or sell food, foodstuffs, food products, and all associated ware, goods and merchandise.
MVF means both a mobile food facility and any vehicle used in conjunction with mobile vending (Vending from motorized vehicles).
Mobile Vending is most frequently conducted on public property, but may be conducted on private property.
Some Council Considerations when considering a proposed Mobile Vending Ordinance should include precise definitions, regulations for hours of operation, and require a permit from the City in addition to a business tax certificate. The regulations should specifically consider:
1. Health permit from Sutter County;
107
2. Permit from the City of Live Oak and Business tax certificate and payment of fees;
3. Location and siting requirements, including distance from certain locations and other mobile vendors, and time restrictions;
4. Hours of operation restrictions;
5. Liability insurance requirements;
6. Compliance with City’s sign regulation and noise level regulations;
7. Prohibition of certain items, such as alcohol, cannabis, adult materials, tobacco products, fireworks, etc;
8. Establishing penalties for violation of the ordinance; Other Possible Considerations would be Long-Term Mobile Vending Facility and anything that would go along with that subject matter, including time limits, permanence etc.
SIDEWALK VENDING:
Legislation defines “sidewalk vendor” as a person who sells food or merchandise on a public sidewalk or other pedestrian path (including public parks). “Sidewalk vendors” can operate from a pushcart, wagon, or other non-motorized conveyance or from his or her person, while on the public sidewalk or walk path. A “sidewalk vendor” may be roaming from place to place or stationary operating from a fixed location.
There are two recent Senate Bills applicable to Sidewalk Vendors. Those are SB 946 and SB 972. SB 946 became effective on January 1, 2019 and prohibits California cities and counties from banning sidewalk vendors from operating on public sidewalks. SB 946 also prohibits cities from regulating sidewalk vendors unless cities establish a permitting system that is consistent with the provisions of SB 946. SB 946 also requires any restrictions placed on sidewalk vendors be directly related to objective health, safety, or welfare concerns. Community animus of economic competition does not constitute an objective health, safety or welfare concern according to the statute. Local jurisdictions wishing to regulate sidewalk vending are required to first adopt a program with regulations consistent with SB 946. The intent of the bill was to promote entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities for low-income and immigrant communities.
SB 972 became effective on January 1, 2023 and amended the California Retail Food Code.
It added a new definition of a “compact mobile food operation” under the definition of a “mobile food facility” to address sidewalk vendors who prepare food using a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non-motorized conveyance. SB 946 did not affect the applicability of the California Retail Food Code as to sidewalk vendors who sell food.
The California Retail Food Code allowed criminal penalties for violations. However, SB 972 decriminalized the California Retail Code. SB 946 and SB 972 have fully decriminalized vending and only administrative citations are allowed.
108
It is important that Council look at both of these in conjunction as they are both related and cover the sale of food from a mobile type apparatus. Some important Council considerations that would be compliant with SB 946 and SB 972 are as follows:
1. Requiring maintenance of sanitary conditions in compliance with Sutter County health requirements and obtaining any applicable County permits to sell food;
2. Complying with disability access standards;
3. Obtaining a permit from the City and paying the appropriate permit fee, obtaining a business tax certificate, and requiring proof of a valid California seller’s permit for sales tax compliance;
4. Obtaining liability insurance;
5. Requiring an acknowledgment that a sidewalk vendor uses public property at their own risk;
6. Requiring compliance with other generally applicable federal, state, county and local laws;
7. Requiring the provision of information on proposed vendor operations;
8. Consideration of restrictions of sidewalk vending within a certain radius of parks, farmers markets, and other temporary special events;
9. Prohibiting stationary vendors in residential areas and placing hours of operation restrictions on roaming and stationary vendors;
10. Imposing distance requirements from certain locations and other sidewalk vendors;
11. Prohibition of vending of alcohol, cannabit, adult materials, tobacco products, fireworks, etc;
12. Establishing administrative fines for violations.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would be recommended that Council give staff input as to the types of restrictions that they would like to see with respect to Mobile Vending and Sidewalk Vending. Since the City is receiving requests for permits, it is imperative that the Council set the narrative of what types of restrictions they would like to put in place.
109
CHAPTER 114: SIDEWALK VENDORS AND VENDING VEHICLES
Section
114.10 Definitions
114.11 Business license required
114.12 Vending permit required
114.13 Vending permit application
114.14 Criteria for approval or denial of vending permit 114.15 Permit expiration and renewal
114.16 Permit nontransferable
114.17 Sidewalk vendor operating requirements
114.18 Vending vehicle operating requirements
114.19 Regulations for vending on private property
114.20 Permit rescission
114.21 Administrative citations
114.22 Appeals
§ 114.10 DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKET. A location operated in accordance with Chapter 10.5 of Division 17 of the Cal. Food and Agricultural Code and any regulations adopted pursuant to that chapter.
DIRECTOR. The City Manager or his or her designee.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL. The City Manager, the Chief of Police, or either of their designees who is charged with enforcing the Indio Code of Ordinances.
FOOD or FOOD PRODUCTS. Any item described by Cal. Health and Safety Code § 113781.
GOODS or MERCHANDISE. Any item that is not food or a food product and can be sold and immediately obtained from a sidewalk vendor. Items for rent, subscription plans, and other services shall not be considered goods or merchandise.
HEARING OFFICER. A person selected by the City Manager to conduct an administrative hearing that has no bias or pecuniary interest in the matter to be heard.
PERSON. One or more natural persons, groups, businesses, business trusts, companies, corporations, joint ventures, joint stock companies, partnership, entities, associations, clubs, or organizations composed of two or more individuals (or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer, or employee of any of them), whether engaged in business, nonprofit, or any other activity.
ROAMING SIDEWALK VENDOR. A sidewalk vendor who moves from place to place and stops only to complete a transaction.
SIDEWALK VENDOR. Any person who vends from a vending cart or from one's person, upon a public sidewalk, parkway, pedestrian path, or other public right-of-way available to pedestrians.
STATIONARY SIDEWALK VENDOR. A sidewalk vendor who vends from a fixed location.
SWAP MEET. A location operated in accordance with Article 6 of Chapter 9 of Division 8 of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and any regulations adopted pursuant to that article.
TEMPORARY SPECIAL PERMIT. Any permit issued by the City for the temporary use of, or encroachment on, the sidewalk or any other public area, including, but not limited to, an encroachment permit, special event permit, or temporary use permit, for purposes including, but not limited to, filming, parades, festivals, or outdoor concerts.
VEND OR VENDING. To sell, offer for sale, display for sale, or solicit offers to purchase, food, food products, beverages, goods, or merchandise.
VENDING CART. Any pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other non-motorized conveyance used for vending, that is not a vehicle as defined in the Cal. Vehicle Code.
VENDING VEHICLE. Any self-propelled, motorized device or vehicle that is used for vending and by which any person or property may be propelled or moved upon a highway, excepting a vending cart or other device moved exclusively by human power.
City of Indio Municipal Code
110
VENDING VEHICLE OPERATOR. Any person that operates or assists in the operation of a vending vehicle.
VENDOR. A person who vends from a vending cart, from one's person, or from a vending vehicle, including an employee or agent of another.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.11 BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED.
All sidewalk vendors and vending vehicle operators desiring to vend in the City shall obtain and maintain a valid business license issued by the City in accordance with Chapter 110 of this Code. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.12 VENDING PERMIT REQUIRED.
In addition to procuring a business license, as set forth in § 114.12, all sidewalk vendors and vending vehicle operators desiring to vend in the City on public or private property shall first obtain a vending permit. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, vending from a vending cart, from one's person, or from a vending vehicle on any public street, alley, parkway, sidewalk, or other public property or private property in the City is prohibited. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.13 VENDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
To apply for a vending permit, a person must file an application with the Director, accompanied by a nonrefundable processing fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. The application shall be in a form prescribed by the Director and shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The legal name and current address and telephone number of the applicant; (B) If the applicant is an agent of an individual, company, partnership, corporation, or other entity, the name and business address of the principal;
(C) A description of the food or merchandise offered for sale; (D) A photograph of the vending vehicle or vending cart. If the applicant intends to use a vending vehicle, a description of the type of vehicle to be used, the vehicle's registration and license number, and the applicant's California driver's license numbers);
(E) Whether the applicant intends to operate as a stationary sidewalk vendor, a roaming sidewalk vendor, or a vending vehicle operator;
(F) A description of the streets, rights-of-way, or other locations in which the applicant intends to vend; (G) A California seller's permit number pursuant to Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code § 6067; (H) If a vendor of food or food products, certification to completion of a food handler course and proof of all required approvals from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health; (I) Proof of liability insurance in the amount and subject to the terms on file with the City's Risk Manager. The City's Risk Manager shall promulgate provisions regarding insurance requirements for sidewalk vendors and vending vehicles and shall be in an amount which is determined to be sufficient to adequately protect the City, persons, and property for injuries or damages which may be caused by activity under this Chapter; (J) Certification by the applicant that the information contained in the application is true to his or her knowledge and belief;
(K) Any other reasonable information regarding the time, place, and manner of the proposed vending. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.14 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF VENDING PERMIT.
The Director, or his or her designee, shall approve the issuance of a vending permit unless he or she determines that:
(A) Information contained in the application, or supplemental information requested from the applicant, is false in any material detail;
(B) The applicant has failed to provide a complete application, after having been notified of the requirement to produce additional information or documents;
(C) The applicant has failed to demonstrate an ability to conform to the operating standards set forth in this Chapter; or (D) The applicant has failed to pay any previous administrative fines, complete any community service, and/or complete any other alternative disposition associated with a previous violation of this Chapter.
If the vending permit is denied, written notice of such denial and the reasons therefor shall be provided to the applicant.
City of Indio Municipal Code
111
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.15 PERMIT EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL.
A vending permit shall be valid for 12 months from the date of issuance, and shall expire and become null and void on the anniversary of its issuance. A person may apply for a permit renewal on a form provided by the City prior to the expiration of his or her active vending permit.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.16 PERMIT NONTRANSFERABLE.
No vending permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be transferable. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.17 SIDEWALK VENDOR OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
Sidewalk vendors shall comply with the following standards and conditions:
(A) Sidewalk vendors shall maintain at all times while vending a valid vending permit, a valid business license in accordance with Chapter 110 of this Code, and any other permit(s) or license(s) required by the City or other governmental agencies. A current, valid business license sticker shall be affixed in plain view to the vending cart. Vendors of food or food products shall in addition affix in plain view to the vending cart a current, valid Riverside County health inspection sticker. (B) No sidewalk vendor shall vend in the following locations:
(1) Within ten feet of any street intersection;
(2) Within ten feet of any driveway or driveway apron;
(3) Upon or within any roadway, median strip, or dividing section; (4) Within 200 feet of a permitted certified farmers' market, a swap meet, or an area designated for a temporary special permit. This prohibition shall be limited to the operating hours of the farmers' market or swap meet, or the limited duration of the temporary special permit;
(5) Within 300 feet of the nearest property line of any property on which a school building is located, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., each day that school is in session. This prohibition will not apply if the school principal gives the pushcart vendor written permission to enter or park on school property. The sidewalk vendor shall provide a copy of that authorization to the City within five days of its receipt, and possess a copy while vending to provide upon request to any Enforcement Official;
(6) Within the Major Music Overlay Zone, as defined in the Unified Development Code, for the duration of any Major Music Festival Event, including the time periods in which the streets and sidewalks are closed prior to and after the event; (C) No sidewalk vendor shall vend in a manner that blocks or obstructs the free movement of pedestrians or vehicles.
Sidewalk vendors must at all times provide a clearance of not less than four feet on all sidewalks or pedestrian areas so as to enable persons to freely pass while walking, running, or using mobility assistance devices. (D) No sidewalk vendor shall block or impede access to bicycle racks, parking meters, required accessibility routes and curb cuts, trash enclosure areas or trash bins, fire hydrants, fire call boxes, or other emergency facilities. (E) No sidewalk vendor shall vend within 50 feet of another sidewalk vendor or a vending vehicle. (F) No sidewalk vendor shall distribute any item from the vending cart in a manner that causes any person to stand in the street.
(G) Sidewalk vendors shall not offer, provide, rent, or sell a service that is neither defined as merchandise or food. (H) Vending is permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., daily, except as follows:
(I) In residential areas, vending shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (J) In nonresidential areas, the limit on hours of operation shall not be more restrictive than the hours of operation of other businesses or uses on the same street.
(K) In City parks, vending shall be permitted only during the open hours of the park. (I) Stationary sidewalk vendors shall obtain an encroachment permit pursuant to Chapter 97, and must operate exclusively from the location and for the time periods designated by the encroachment permit. (J) Stationary sidewalk vendors shall not vend in areas that are zoned exclusively residential. (K) Stationary sidewalk vendors shall not vend at any park where the City or the park operator has signed an agreement for concessions that exclusively permits the sale of food or merchandise by a concessionaire. (L) Sidewalk vendors shall maintain a clearly designated trash receptacle in the immediate vicinity of the vending cart, City of Indio Municipal Code
112
marked with a sign requesting use by patrons. Prior to leaving any vending location, the vendor shall pick up, remove, and dispose of all trash generated by the vending operations within a 25 foot radius of the vending location. (M) Sidewalk vendors shall maintain and possess at all times while vending proof of liability insurance in the amount required by the City.
(N) Sidewalk vendors of food or food products shall possess and display in plain view on the vending cart a valid health permit from Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. (O) Sidewalk vendors shall comply with all applicable state and local laws, including without limitation state food preparation, handling, and labeling requirements; fire codes and regulations; noise standards; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and other disability access standards (both state and federal). (P) No vending cart shall become a permanent fixture on the vending site or be considered an improvement to real property.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.18 VENDING VEHICLE OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
Vending vehicle operators shall comply with the following standards and conditions:
(A) Vending vehicle operators shall obtain and maintain at all times while vending a valid vending permit, a valid business license in accordance with Chapter 110 of this Code, and any other permit(s) or license(s) required by the City or other governmental agencies. A current, valid business license sticker shall be affixed to the back of the vending vehicle. Vendors of food or food products shall in addition affix to the lower left hand side of the windshield a current, valid Riverside County health inspection sticker.
(B) In addition to any other equipment required by law, each vending vehicle shall be equipped with the following:
(1) A convex mirror mounted so that the driver can see the area in front of the truck that is obscured by the truck's hood; and
(2) A back-up alarm audible for a distance of at least 100 feet. (C) Lettering showing the vending vehicle operator or owner's name, business address, and telephone number shall be permanently affixed to both sides of the vending vehicle in a conspicuous place. The lettering shall at all times be visible, shall not be less than four inches in height, and shall be in contrast to the color of the background upon which it is placed. (D) No vending vehicle operator shall vend in the following locations:
(1) Within 100 feet of any street intersection controlled by a crosswalk, traffic light, or stop sign; (2) Within ten feet of any driveway or driveway apron;
(3) Within any publicly-owned or operated parking lot, unless the vending vehicle operator has written permission of the owner and complies with the provisions of § 114.18;
(4) On any street, alley, or highway with a posted speed limit greater than 35 miles per hour; (5) Within 200 feet of a permitted certified farmers' market, a swap meet, or an area designated for a temporary special permit. This prohibition shall be limited to the operating hours of the farmers' market or swap meet, or the limited duration of the temporary special permit;
(6) Within 300 feet of the nearest property line of any property on which a school building is located, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., each day that school is in session. This prohibition will not apply if the school principal gives the vending vehicle operator written permission to enter or park on school property. The vending vehicle operator shall provide a copy of that authorization to the City within five days of its receipt, and possess a copy while vending to provide upon request to any Enforcement Official;
(7) Within the Major Music Overlay Zone for the duration of any Major Music Festival Event, as defined in the Unified Development Code, including the time-periods in which the streets and sidewalks are closed prior to and after the event. (E) The vending vehicle shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. (F) No vending vehicle operator shall vend within 50 feet of another vending vehicle or a sidewalk vendor. (G) Vending is prohibited on the exposed street or traffic side of the vending vehicle. No food, food products, goods, or merchandise shall be distributed from the vending vehicle in a manner so as to cause any customer or potential customer to stand in that portion of the street that is open to other vehicles. (H) No part of a vending vehicle or any other equipment or furniture related to the operation of the vending vehicle shall encroach onto a public sidewalk.
(I) Vending is permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., daily, except that in residential areas vending shall only be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (J) Vending vehicle operators shall maintain a clearly designated trash receptacle in the immediate vicinity of the vending City of Indio Municipal Code
113
vehicle, marked with a sign requesting use by patrons. Prior to leaving any vending location, the vendor shall pick up, remove, and dispose of all trash generated by the vending operations within a 25 foot radius of the vending location. (K) Vending vehicle operators shall maintain and possess at all times while vending proof of liability insurance in the amount required by the City.
(L) Vending vehicle operators shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including without limitation state food preparation, handling, and labeling requirements; fire codes and regulations; noise standards; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and other disability access standards; and traffic, parking, and Cal. Vehicle Code provisions. (M) No vending vehicle shall become a permanent fixture on the vending site or be considered an improvement to real property.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.19 REGULATIONS FOR VENDING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
In addition to compliance with the operating requirements set forth in §§ 114.16 and 114.17, any vendor operating or conducting business from a vending cart or vending vehicle on private property shall comply with the following:
(A) The vendor shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations and land use entitlements for the private property. (B) Unless vending is otherwise authorized by the applicable zoning regulations and/or land use entitlements for the private property or as otherwise provided for herein, the vendor shall obtain from the Community Development Director an administrative permit prior to engaging any vending activity. Any request for such a permit shall require the written consent of the property owner, which shall be provided to the Community Development Director. In determining whether to grant the administrative permit, the Community Development Director shall make the following findings: (i) the vending is allowed within the applicable underlying zone or is consistent with the uses permitted in such zone; (ii) the vending will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or adversely affect property values or the present or future development of the surrounding area; and (iii) the property is physically suitable for the activity. The Community Development Director shall review and approve the administrative permit application within ten days of receipt. If the administrative permit is denied, written notice of such denial and the reasons therefor shall be provided to the applicant. (C) No administrative permit, however, is required under this Section for the following vending vehicle activities:
(1) Vending vehicles that serve active construction sites as long as the vending vehicle does not vend to the general public during their stop and the stop at the site is no longer than one hour. (2) Vending vehicles on private property operating solely for private catering purposes as long as the vehicle is situated entirely on private property, service is limited to the guests of the catered event only and no payment transactions occur for individual orders taken by the vending vehicle operator. (3) The vending vehicle is on private property for no more than one hour as long as: (a) vending is authorized by the applicable zoning and/or land use entitlement; and (b) the vendor has the written consent from the property owner and said consent shall be provided to the City upon request.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.20 PERMIT RESCISSION.
(A) Sidewalk vendors. The Director may rescind a vending permit issued to a sidewalk vendor for a fourth violation or any subsequent violation of this Chapter.
(B) Vending vehicle operators. The Director may rescind a vending permit issued to a vending vehicle operator for a first violation or any subsequent violation of this Chapter.
(C) Should a vending permit be rescinded, the sidewalk vendor or vending vehicle operator shall be required to cease operation immediately. A sidewalk vendor or vending vehicle operator whose permit is rescinded may apply for a new vending permit upon the expiration of the term of the rescinded permit. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.21 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS.
(A) Except as provided in Subsection (B) below, any violation of this Chapter is punishable by an administrative citation in following amounts:
(1) One hundred dollars for a first violation.
(2) Two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year of the first violation. (3) Five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year of the first violation. (B) Vending without a valid City-issued vending permit is punishable by an administrative citation in the following amounts:
(1) Two hundred fifty dollars for a first violation.
City of Indio Municipal Code
114
(2) Five hundred dollars for a second violation within one year of the first violation. (3) One thousand dollars for each additional violation within one year of the first violation. (4) Upon proof of a valid vending permit, the administrative citations set forth in this paragraph shall be reduced to amounts set forth in Subsection (A).
(C) A violation of this chapter shall not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor. No person alleged to have violated the provisions herein shall be subject to arrest except when otherwise permitted by law. (D) Failure to pay an administrative citation issued pursuant to this section shall not be punishable as an infraction or misdemeanor. Additional fines, fees, assessments, or any other financial conditions beyond those authorized herein shall not be assessed.
(E) When assessing administrative citations pursuant to this chapter, the hearing officer shall take into consideration the person's ability to pay the fine. The City shall provide the person with notice of his or her right to request an ability-to-pay determination and shall make available instructions or other materials for requesting an ability-to-pay determination. The person may request an ability-to-pay determination at adjudication or while the judgment remains unpaid, including when a case is delinquent or has been referred to a comprehensive collection program. (F) If the person meets the criteria described in Cal. Gov’t Code § 68632(a) or (b), the City shall accept, in full satisfaction, 20% of an administrative citation imposed pursuant to this chapter. (G) The hearing officer may allow a person to complete community service in lieu of paying the total administrative citation, may waive the administrative citation, or may offer an alternative disposition. (Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
§ 114.22 APPEALS.
(A) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Director to issue, deny issuance, or rescind a vending permit may file an appeal with the City Clerk within 14 calendar days from the date of the decision. The permit, if one has been issued, shall remain in effect while the appeal is being heard by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer shall make his or her decision on the basis of the preponderance of the credible evidence presented at the appeal hearing and shall render a decision within ten business days of the hearing to either affirm, reverse, or modify the action of the Director. The decision shall be in writing, and shall set forth the findings and reasons for the decision. The Hearing Officer's decision after such hearing shall be final and conclusive.
(B) Except as otherwise specified herein, appeals of administrative citations shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures and requirements Chapter 11 of this Code.
(Ord. 1767, passed 12-15-21)
City of Indio Municipal Code
115
City of Live Oak
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
Title: Discussion of Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Assumptions Contact Information: Mark Scott, Interim City Manager
Background: The City Manager will provide an overview of budgetary conditions and assumptions that form the basis of the Draft Budget recommendations that will be presented to the City Council in June.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Recommendation: Receive and provide feedback to the City Manager oral report. 116