Susanville City Council
April 15, 2026

1 City of Susanville
66 N. Lassen Street • Susanville CA
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
Russ Brown, Mayor pro tem
Curtis Bortle • Patrick Parrish • Dawn Miller
Susanville City Council
Regular Council Meeting • City Council Chambers
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 – 4:30 PM
Call to Order
Roll Call

1. Approval of Agenda: (Additions and/or Deletions)

2. Public Comment Regarding Closed Session Items (if any): Any person may address the City Council at this time upon any subject for discussion during Closed Session.

A. A. Public Employment - pursuant to Government Code §54957

1. Public Safety Chief

4. Return to Open Session: (recess if necessary)
• Reconvene in open session at 5:00 PM
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Invocation
• Report any changes to agenda
• Report any action out of Closed Session
• Awards or Presentations by the City Council

5. Business from the Floor: Any person may address the City Council at this time upon any subject on the agenda or not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the City Council. However, comments on items on the agenda may be reserved until the item is discussed and any matter not on the agenda that requires action will be referred to staff for a report and action at a subsequent meeting.

Presentations are subject to a three-minute limit.

6. Consent Calendar: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items. Any member of the public or the City Council may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar to be considered separately.

6.A. Minutes of the City Council April 1, 2026 regular meeting

6.B. Vendor and Payroll Warrants

6.C. Consider Resolution No. 26-6530, authorizing a 2.68% increase to the Administrative Bargaining Unit Salary Matrix effective July 1, 2026, through and including June 30, 2027

7. Public Hearings:

7.A. Consider Resolution No. 26-6533 Initiating the Annexation of APN 107-280-017 and Adjacent Public Right of Way Along State Route 36 from the Property Line Across the Highway Into the City Limits of Susanville and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an

2 Application for Annexation of the Parcel to the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission, Resolution No. 26-6534 Amending the General Plan to Redesignate APN# 107-280-017 to General Commercial/Shopping Center

7.B. Consider Resolution No. 26-6525, upholding the administrative citations issued against 602 Main St. (APN: 103-303-002-000)

7.C. Consider Resolution No. 26-6527, approving recordation of a lien for unpaid administrative penalties issued against 1101 Arnold Street (APN:103-232-007-000)

7.D. Consider Resolution No. 26-6528, confirming a cost report of abatement and incidental expenses incurred by the City of Susanville for the execution of Nuisance Abatement Order NA-2025-001 at 17 Orange Street (APN: 107-152-011-000)

8. Council Discussion/Announcements:

9. New Business:

9.A. Consider Resolution No. 26-6529, authorizing the releasing of Tuscorora natural gas pipeline capacity to IGI Resources (IGI) until April 30, 2029, and further authorizing the City Manager to execute two updated agreements with IGI including the proposed Asset Management Agreement and the consolidated Transaction Agreement.

9.B. Consider Resolution No. 26-6531, authorizing the Finance Director to increase the Golf Course budget by $5,000 for replacement of pressure relief valve

9.C. Consider Resolution No. 26-6532, awarding bid to All Season Heating and Air Inc. for the 2026 HVAC Renovation Susanville Fire Station Project Number 26-01.

10. Planning Commission:

10.A. Public Hearing - Loves Travel Stop
Consider PC Resolution No. 26-1200, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Susanville Travel Stop Project, PC Resolution No. 26-1201, Recommending the City Council amend the General Plan Map to Redesignate APN#107-280-017 to General Commercial/Shopping Center, PC Resolution No. 26-1202, Approving Architectural and Site Plan Review, Use Permit, and Sign Permit Together with Making Findings of Fact and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Love's Travel Stop Project (APN 107-280-017)

11. Susanville Community Redevelopment Agency - no business:

12. Susanville Municipal Energy Corporation - no business:

13. Continuing Business:

14. City Manager's Reports :

14.A. Department Reports - Fire Department

15. Future Council Items:

15.A. Future Council Items

3 16. Adjournment:
• The next regular meeting of the Susanville City Council will be held on May 6, 2026 at 4:30PM.

Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours and at the meeting. These reports and documents are also available at the City’s website www.cityofsusanville.gov, unless there were systems problems posting to the website.

Accessibility: An interpreter for the hearing-impaired may be made available upon request to the City Clerk seventy-two hours prior to a meeting. A reader for the vision-impaired for purposes of reviewing the agenda may be made available upon request to the City Clerk. The location of this meeting is wheelchairaccessible.

I, Heidi Whitlock, certify that I caused to be posted notice of the regular meeting scheduled for April 15, 2026 in the areas designated on April 10, 2026.

Agenda Item No. 6.A.

Agenda Item
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Minutes of the City Council April 1, 2026 regular meeting Presented By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Summary: Attached for the Council's review and approval are the minutes of the April 1, 2026 regular meeting.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Action Requested: Motion to recieve and file the minutes of the April 1, 2026 regular meeting.

Attachments:

1. 20260401.cc.min

Susanville City Council
Regular Council Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 – 4:30 PM
Meeting called to order at 4:31PM.

Council Members in attendance: Schuster, Brown, Parrish, Bortle, & Miller

1. Approval of Agenda: (Additions and/or Deletions)
Agenda was approved with one modification moving item 9C to the top of new business.

MOVER: Council Member Dawn Miller
SECONDER: Council Member Patrick Parrish
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

2. Public Comment Regarding Closed Session Items (if any): No comments.

The City Council convened in Closed Session at 4:32PM to discuss the items below.

A. A. Public Employment - pursuant to Government Code §54957

1. Public Safety Chief

4. Return to Open Session: (recess if necessary)
• Reconvene in open session at 5:02 PM
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Invocation
• Report any changes to agenda
Dan Newton, City Manager, stated that prior to meeting in closed session, the Council approved the agenda with one change including moving item 9C will be heard prior to 9A. • Report any action out of Closed Session
Mr. Newton stated that Council met in Closed Session prior to open session. Council recessed and will reconvene in closed following open session.
• Awards or Presentations by the City Council

5. Business from the Floor:

Lassen High School Swim Team members addressed the Council and thanked them for the previous years of support.

6. Consent Calendar:

MOVER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

6.A. Minutes of the City Council March 18, 2026 regular meeting

6.B. Vendor and Payroll Warrants

7. Public Hearings: No business.

8. Council Discussion/Announcements:

Council Member Bortle offered a Land Acknowledgement Statement.

9. New Business: Item 9C was heard prior to 9A.

9.A. Consider Resolution No. 26-6521, approving the temporary closure of River Street from South Fairfield Drive to the entrance to Pat Murphy Little League Park, and South Fairfield Drive from River Street to the Midtown South Alley, in Support of the Susanville Little League Opening Day Parade on April 18, 2026, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Erik Edholm, Acting Public Works Director, provided an explanation of the item and requested Council approval of Resolution No. 26-6521.

MOVER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
SECONDER: Council Member Dawn Miller
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

9.B. Consider Resolution No. 26-6522, authorizing the Finance Director to increase various fund budgets to facilitate airport, street, park, and water system improvements and operational needs
Mr. Edholm provided an explanation of the item and requested Council approval of Resolution No. 26-6522.

MOVER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
SECONDER: Council Member Dawn Miller
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

9.C. Discussion regarding sign regulations (SMC Chapter 17.128) Mr. Edholm provided an explanation of the code and offered information on where to go for clarification if needed.

Council Member Bortle inquired as to the process to get a sign, to which Mr. Edholm responded with the permit process also addressing some of the fees.

Josh, pastor and member of the public, talked about the change of signage at his church, including the previous change out and what would be required to add another sign in the future.

He suggested providing some grace to current business owners with the charges due to the current economic state of Susanville.

Brian Haynes, a business owner, stated his concerns with the sign ordinance as his sign was put up four years ago and just recently received a letter regarding the sign. He also requested consideration to waive the fees for small businesses.

Council Member Parrish inquired whether the rules were easy to access, or if the city was just being more strict.

Mr. Newton provided information regarding the courtesy notice that was sent out to everyone to start the discussion process and stated that there were no actions taken, just notice provided.

Council Member Bortle inquired about how involved Caltrans was regarding the signage, to which Mr. Edholm responded that it depends on the sign and whether it is in Caltrans right-away.

Mayor pro tem Brown stated that the Council has to support staff who are doing their jobs but, that Council also has to support businesses. He suggested bringing the item back to discuss the code.

Mayor Schuster agreed with Mayor pro tem Brown that the code should come back for possible

changes. She added that flags, decals, etc... should be addressed.

Council Member Miller requested more information related to the cost of some signs over banners or flags, as well as additional information.

Mr. Edholm mentioned the need to address temporary signage as there needed to be more clarification. To determine if any signs would be exempt from the code, etc.

Direction was provided to staff to bring back a discussion item to include decals, banners, flags, etc. Mr. Newton discussed expanding the definitions to include the decals, the flags, removable sandwich boards, etc. A request was made to "exempt" the flags from the permit process. Mr.

Newton clarified that Caltrans could still come in and request it.

9.D. Consider Resolution No. 26-6523, approving the Acting Public Works Director to submit a request to the Lassen County Transportation Commission for allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) monies in the amount of $131,715 for local streets and roads purposes.

Mr. Edholm provided an explanation of the item and requested Council approval of Resolution No. 26-6523.

MOVER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
SECONDER: Council Member Patrick Parrish
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

9.E. Consider Resolution No. 26-6524, Approving and authorizing the mayor to execute Addendum #2 to the Agreement for Professional Auditing Services with Van Lant & Fankhanel, LLP
Chandra Jabbs, Finance Director, provided an explanation of the item and requested Council approval of Resolution No. 26-6524.

MOVER: Council Member Dawn Miller
SECONDER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None

RESULT: Passed

10. Planning Commission: No business:

11. Susanville Community Redevelopment Agency: No business.

12. Susanville Municipal Energy Corporation: No business.

13. Continuing Business:

13.A. Discussion regarding Memorial Ball Park Grandstand Fire Emergency Operations Mr. Newton provided an explanation of the item and requested council direction.

Frank Avilla, LCC Baseball coach, thanked city staff and his baseball team after the additional emergency that occurred on Sunday and everyone's efforts to get the field fixed.

Roxanna Haynes, LCC, voiced her appreciation for all the City has done and requested if costs were pursued due to the issues with the contractors that required the moving of games.

The Council motioned to continue with the emergency at this time.

MOVER: Council Member Curtis Bortle
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown
AYES: Mayor Mendy Schuster, Mayor Pro Tem Russ Brown, Council Member Patrick Parrish, Council Member Curtis Bortle, Council Member Dawn Miller
NAYS: None
RESULT: Passed

14. City Manager's Reports:

14.A. Department Reports - Fire Department
Mr. Newton requested the update to be moved to the next meeting to which the Council agreed.

15. Future Council Items:

15.A. Future Council Items
Mr. Newton provided an explanation of the item and requested council input. No additional items were requested.

Open session ended at 6:38PM.

Council reconvened in closed session at 6:48PM.

Council reconvened in open session at 7:33PM.

Mr. Newton stated that Council reconvened in closed session to continue discussion. Direction was provided to staff with no reportable action taken.

16. Adjournment:

Council adjourned the meeting at 7:36PM.
• The next regular meeting of the Susanville City Council will be held on April 15, 2026 at 4:30 PM.

Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk Mendy Schuster, Mayor
Approved on: ___________________

Agenda Item No. 6.B.

Agenda Item
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Jenny Galindo, Account Technician II
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Vendor and Payroll Warrants
Presented By: Chandra Jabbs, Finance Director
Summary: Warrants dated March 19,2026 through April 1, 2026 numbered 226068 – 226102 and 226105 - 226139.

Fiscal Impact: Accounts Payable warrants totaling $129,749.92, plus $269,012.09 in Payroll warrants, for a total of $398,762.01.

Action Requested: Motion to file and receive.

Attachments:

1. 03-19-2026

2. 03-26-2026

3. 04-01-2026

CITY OF SUSANVILLE Check Register - Payments by Vendor Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 3/26/2026 - 3/26/2026 Mar 26, 2026 09:09AM Report Criteria:

Report type: GL detail
Check.Voided = False
GL Check Check Vendor Description Invoice Inv GL Account GL Account Title Seq Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Number Seq No Amount Amount 03/26 03/26/2026 226108 9432 ALL SEASON HEATING WRP #0025 CAPP SHERMAN 031826 1 8404-430-15-48 GRANTS 5,000.00 5,000.00 03/26 03/26/2026 226108 9432 ALL SEASON HEATING WRP #0031 CAPP RUTHERFOR 031826 2 8404-430-15-48 GRANTS 2,500.00 2,500.00 03/26 03/26/2026 226108 9432 ALL SEASON HEATING WRP #0032 CAPP BRASHER 031826 3 8404-430-15-48 GRANTS 7,000.00 7,000.00 Total 031826: 14,500.00 14,500.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226109 REFUND WATER DEPOSIT 10432250048 1 7110-2228-000 DEPOSITS-CUSTOMER 50.73 50.73 Total 10432250048: 50.73 50.73
03/26 03/26/2026 226110 1307 C&S WASTE SOLUTIONS 1505 MAIN ST-FD 177591254U037 1 1010-422-10-44 DISPOSAL 238.40 238.40 Total 177591254U037: 238.40 238.40
03/26 03/26/2026 226111 REFUND GAS DEPOSIT 10507900228 1 7401-2228-000 DEPOSITS-CUSTOMER 188.71 188.71 Total 10507900228: 188.71 188.71
03/26 03/26/2026 226112 148 COMPUTER LOGISTICS 1 YR SECURITY LICENSE & SU 86973 1 1000-417-10-43 TECHNICAL SVCS 855.66 855.66 Total 86973: 855.66 855.66
03/26 03/26/2026 226112 148 COMPUTER LOGISTICS MONTHLY BILLING FOR APRIL - 87002 1 1000-417-10-43 TECHNICAL SVCS 6,294.90 6,294.90 Total 87002: 6,294.90 6,294.90
03/26 03/26/2026 226113 152 COUSO TECHNOLOGY & CIVIC CONTRIBUTION EASTER 032426 1 1000-466-33-46 DISCRETIONARY - MAYOR SCH 500.00 500.00 Total 032426: 500.00 500.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226114 161 CSK AUTO INC BATTERY CLNR-GC 2740-234645 1 7530-451-52-44 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - EQU 48.66 48.66 Total 2740-234645: 48.66 48.66
03/26 03/26/2026 226115 219 ED STAUB & SONS PETR 186.02 GAL PROPANE LP-AIRP 13900693 1 7201-430-81-46 PROPANE 480.63 480.63 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check

CITY OF SUSANVILLE Check Register - Payments by Vendor Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 3/26/2026 - 3/26/2026 Mar 26, 2026 09:09AM GL Check Check Vendor Description Invoice Inv GL Account GL Account Title Seq Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Number Seq No Amount Amount Total 13900693: 480.63 480.63
03/26 03/26/2026 226115 219 ED STAUB & SONS PETR 233.60 CARB PREM - GC 13905791 1 7530-451-52-46 PROPANE 1,261.17 1,261.17 Total 13905791: 1,261.17 1,261.17
03/26 03/26/2026 226116 REFUND WATER OVERPAYMEN 10233200036 1 9999-1001-001 CASH CLEARING - UTILITIES 141.00 141.00 Total 10233200036: 141.00 141.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226117 11555 GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES RESOLUTION 25-6500- WATER 935677 1 7114-430-54-43 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 3,201.35 3,201.35 Total 935677: 3,201.35 3,201.35
03/26 03/26/2026 226117 11555 GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES RESOLUTION 25-6500- WATER 935678 1 7114-430-54-43 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 1,277.75 1,277.75 Total 935678: 1,277.75 1,277.75
03/26 03/26/2026 226117 11555 GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES RESOLUTION 25-6500- WATER 935679 1 7114-430-54-43 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 1,291.16 1,291.16 Total 935679: 1,291.16 1,291.16
03/26 03/26/2026 226117 11555 GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES RESOLUTION 25-6500- WATER 935680 1 7114-430-54-43 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 1,423.83 1,423.83 Total 935680: 1,423.83 1,423.83
03/26 03/26/2026 226118 11187 HAIR BY KARLI REFUND OVERPAYMENT CLOS 091624 1 9999-1001-004 CASH CLEARING - BUSINESS LI 29.50 29.50 Total 091624: 29.50 29.50
03/26 03/26/2026 226119 298 HAT CREEK CONSTRUCT DEPOSIT REIM. COMM. CENTE 031926 1 1000-2228-009 DEPOSITS-COMM CENTER RE 55.00 55.00 Total 031926: 55.00 55.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226120 374 L.N. CURTIS & SONS SAFETY SUPPLIES- FD INV1042176 1 1010-422-10-46 SUPPLIES- SAFETY ITEMS 5,033.63 5,033.63 Total INV1042176: 5,033.63 5,033.63
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check

CITY OF SUSANVILLE Check Register - Payments by Vendor Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 3/26/2026 - 3/26/2026 Mar 26, 2026 09:09AM GL Check Check Vendor Description Invoice Inv GL Account GL Account Title Seq Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Number Seq No Amount Amount 03/26 03/26/2026 226121 437 LMUD 1505 MAIN ST FIRE STATION 2876 022526 1 1010-422-10-46 ELECTRICITY 1,137.38 1,137.38 Total 2876 022526: 1,137.38 1,137.38
03/26 03/26/2026 226122 1508 MAIN STREET LUBE VEHICLE MAINT- PD 59010 1 1009-421-10-44 VEHICLE-REPAIR & MAINTENA 93.68 93.68 Total 59010: 93.68 93.68
03/26 03/26/2026 226123 558 PLUMAS-SIERRA INTERNET ACCESS CIRCUIT-FD 69319 022726 1 1010-422-10-45 COMMUNICATIONS 309.28 309.28 Total 69319 022726: 309.28 309.28
03/26 03/26/2026 226124 11583 ROLLINS, INC 1ST SERVICE PC STANDARD-A 296932253 1 1000-417-10-43 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 200.00 200.00 Total 296932253: 200.00 200.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226125 76 SUSANVILLE ACE HARD LATCH 2-3/8 GAURD BALLVR-F 540035 1 1010-422-10-44 FACILITY -REPAIR & MAINTENA 17.53 17.53 Total 540035: 17.53 17.53
03/26 03/26/2026 226126 677 SUSANVILLE SANITARY 1505 MAIN- FD 2064 030226 1 1010-422-10-44 SEWER 136.88 136.88 Total 2064 030226: 136.88 136.88
03/26 03/26/2026 226127 10404 THE INTERMOUNTAIN NE ADVERTISEMENT-CITY CLERK 20240683 1 1000-411-40-45 ADVERTISING 150.00 150.00 Total 20240683: 150.00 150.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226128 11585 DEPOSIT REIM. COMM. CENTE 031926 1 1000-2228-009 DEPOSITS-COMM CENTER RE 55.00 55.00 Total 031926: 55.00 55.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226129 11356 TSB LLC SUSANVILL FIRE STATION-FD AES-250015-8 1 2004-422-10-43 TECHNICAL SVCS 2,450.00 2,450.00 Total AES-250015-8: 2,450.00 2,450.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226130 7125 WALBERG INC. EP 26-04 FINAL DEPOSIT RETU 032426 1 1001-2228-001 DEPOSITS-CURB, GUTTER, SID 200.00 200.00 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check

CITY OF SUSANVILLE Check Register - Payments by Vendor Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 3/26/2026 - 3/26/2026 Mar 26, 2026 09:09AM GL Check Check Vendor Description Invoice Inv GL Account GL Account Title Seq Check Period Issue Date Number Number Payee Number Seq No Amount Amount Total 032426: 200.00 200.00
03/26 03/26/2026 226131 770 WESTERN NEVADA SUP SUPPLIES- FD 62171462 1 1010-422-10-46 SUPPLIES- GENERAL 15.74 15.74 Total 62171462: 15.74 15.74
Grand Totals: 41,637.57 41,637.57
Report Criteria:

Report type: GL detail
Check.Voided = False
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check

Agenda Item No. 6.C.

Standard Workflow
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Jolene Arredondo, Deputy City Manager
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6530, authorizing a 2.68% increase to the Administrative Bargaining Unit Salary Matrix effective July 1, 2026, through and including June 30, 2027
Presented By: Dan Newton, City Manager
Summary: Section 6.B. of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that the Administrative Unit employees will receive an annual salary matrix adjustment based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) percent increase as reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the West Area. The maximum salary matrix increase per fiscal year will be 3.00%. The determined salary matrix increase for the fiscal year 2026/2027 is

2.68% which has been rounded to the nearest one-hundredth and calculated as per instructed in the Administrative Bargaining Unit MOU. The increase has been applied to the previous year’s adopted salary matrix, ensuring that each new matrix reflects the adjustment over the prior year. The revised salary matrix for each year will be memorialized by a resolution of the City Council prior to June 30 for effective change occurring each July 1st of this agreement.

Fiscal Impact: Overall Salary Matrix increase of 2.68% effective July 1, 2026 Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6530, authorizing a 2.68% increase to the Administrative Bargaining Unit Salary Matrix effective July 1, 2026, through and including June 30, 2027 Attachments:

1. 2026.2027 Salary Matrix

2. 26-6530

STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP A B C D E F G H 101 846.89 889.24 933.70 980.38 1029.40 1080.87 1134.91 1191.66 102 868.06 911.47 957.04 1004.89 1055.14 1107.89 1163.29 1221.45 103 889.76 934.25 980.97 1030.01 1081.51 1135.59 1192.37 1251.99 104 912.01 957.61 1005.49 1055.76 1108.55 1163.98 1222.18 1283.29 105 934.81 981.55 1030.63 1082.16 1136.27 1193.08 1252.73 1315.37 106 958.18 1006.09 1056.39 1109.21 1164.67 1222.91 1284.05 1348.25 107 982.13 1031.24 1082.80 1136.94 1193.79 1253.48 1316.15 1381.96 108 1006.69 1057.02 1109.87 1165.37 1223.63 1284.82 1349.06 1416.51 109 1031.85 1083.45 1137.62 1194.50 1254.23 1316.94 1382.78 1451.92 110 1057.65 1110.53 1166.06 1224.36 1285.58 1349.86 1417.35 1488.22 111 1084.09 1138.30 1195.21 1254.97 1317.72 1383.61 1452.79 1525.43 112 1111.19 1166.75 1225.09 1286.35 1350.66 1418.20 1489.11 1563.56 113 1138.97 1195.92 1255.72 1318.51 1384.43 1453.65 1526.33 1602.65 114 1167.45 1225.82 1287.11 1351.47 1419.04 1489.99 1564.49 1642.72 115 1196.63 1256.47 1319.29 1385.25 1454.52 1527.24 1603.61 1683.79 116 1226.55 1287.88 1352.27 1419.89 1490.88 1565.42 1643.70 1725.88 117 1257.21 1320.08 1386.08 1455.38 1528.15 1604.56 1684.79 1769.03 118 1288.64 1353.08 1420.73 1491.77 1566.36 1644.67 1726.91 1813.25 119 1320.86 1386.90 1456.25 1529.06 1605.51 1685.79 1770.08 1858.58 120 1353.88 1421.58 1492.66 1567.29 1645.65 1727.94 1814.33 1905.05 121 1387.73 1457.12 1529.97 1606.47 1686.79 1771.13 1859.69 1952.67 122 1422.42 1493.54 1568.22 1646.63 1728.96 1815.41 1906.18 2001.49 123 1457.98 1530.88 1607.43 1687.80 1772.19 1860.80 1953.84 2051.53 124 1494.43 1569.15 1647.61 1729.99 1816.49 1907.32 2002.68 2102.82 125 1531.79 1608.38 1688.80 1773.24 1861.90 1955.00 2052.75 2155.39 126 1570.09 1648.59 1731.02 1817.57 1908.45 2003.88 2104.07 2209.27 127 1609.34 1689.81 1774.30 1863.01 1956.16 2053.97 2156.67 2264.50 128 1649.57 1732.05 1818.66 1909.59 2005.07 2105.32 2210.59 2321.12 129 1690.81 1775.35 1864.12 1957.33 2055.19 2157.95 2265.85 2379.14 130 1733.08 1819.74 1910.73 2006.26 2106.57 2211.90 2322.50 2438.62 131 1776.41 1865.23 1958.49 2056.42 2159.24 2267.20 2380.56 2499.59 132 1820.82 1911.86 2007.46 2107.83 2213.22 2323.88 2440.07 2562.08 133 1866.34 1959.66 2057.64 2160.52 2268.55 2381.98 2501.08 2626.13 134 1913.00 2008.65 2109.08 2214.54 2325.26 2441.53 2563.60 2691.78 135 1960.83 2058.87 2161.81 2269.90 2383.40 2502.57 2627.69 2759.08 136 2009.85 2110.34 2215.86 2326.65 2442.98 2565.13 2693.39 2828.06 137 2060.09 2163.10 2271.25 2384.81 2504.05 2629.26 2760.72 2898.76 138 2111.59 2217.17 2328.03 2444.43 2566.66 2694.99 2829.74 2971.23 139 2164.38 2272.60 2386.23 2505.55 2630.82 2762.36 2900.48 3045.51 140 2218.49 2329.42 2445.89 2568.18 2696.59 2831.42 2972.99 3121.64 141 2273.96 2387.65 2507.04 2632.39 2764.01 2902.21 3047.32 3199.68 142 2330.81 2447.35 2569.71 2698.20 2833.11 2974.76 3123.50 3279.68 143 2389.08 2508.53 2633.96 2765.65 2903.94 3049.13 3201.59 3361.67 144 2448.80 2571.24 2699.80 2834.79 2976.53 3125.36 3281.63 3445.71 145 2510.02 2635.52 2767.30 2905.66 3050.95 3203.50 3363.67 3531.85 146 2572.77 2701.41 2836.48 2978.31 3127.22 3283.58 3447.76 3620.15 147 2637.09 2768.95 2907.39 3052.76 3205.40 3365.67 3533.96 3710.65 148 2703.02 2838.17 2980.08 3129.08 3285.54 3449.81 3622.30 3803.42 149 2770.59 2909.12 3054.58 3207.31 3367.68 3536.06 3712.86 3898.51 150 2839.86 2981.85 3130.95 3287.49 3451.87 3624.46 3805.68 3995.97 151 2910.86 3056.40 3209.22 3369.68 3538.16 3715.07 3900.83 4095.87 152 2983.63 3132.81 3289.45 3453.92 3626.62 3807.95 3998.35 4198.26 153 3058.22 3211.13 3371.69 3540.27 3717.28 3903.15 4098.31 4303.22 154 3134.67 3291.41 3455.98 3628.78 3810.22 4000.73 4200.76 4410.80 155 3213.04 3373.69 3542.38 3719.50 3905.47 4100.74 4305.78 4521.07 156 3293.37 3458.04 3630.94 3812.48 4003.11 4203.26 4413.43 4634.10 157 3375.70 3544.49 3721.71 3907.80 4103.19 4308.34 4523.76 4749.95 158 3460.09 3633.10 3814.75 4005.49 4205.77 4416.05 4636.86 4868.70 159 3546.60 3723.93 3910.12 4105.63 4310.91 4526.45 4752.78 4990.42 160 3635.26 3817.02 4007.87 4208.27 4418.68 4639.62 4871.60 5115.18 161 3726.14 3912.45 4108.07 4313.48 4529.15 4755.61 4993.39 5243.06 162 3819.30 4010.26 4210.77 4421.31 4642.38 4874.50 5118.22 5374.13 163 3914.78 4110.52 4316.04 4531.85 4758.44 4996.36 5246.18 5508.49 164 4012.65 4213.28 4423.94 4645.14 4877.40 5121.27 5377.33 5646.20 165 4112.96 4318.61 4534.54 4761.27 4999.33 5249.30 5511.76 5787.35 166 4215.79 4426.58 4647.91 4880.30 5124.32 5380.53 5649.56 5932.04 167 4321.18 4537.24 4764.10 5002.31 5252.42 5515.05 5790.80 6080.34 168 4429.21 4650.67 4883.21 5127.37 5383.74 5652.92 5935.57 6232.35 169 4539.94 4766.94 5005.29 5255.55 5518.33 5794.24 6083.96 6388.16 170 4653.44 4886.11 5130.42 5386.94 5656.29 5939.10 6236.06 6547.86 171 4769.78 5008.27 5258.68 5521.61 5797.69 6087.58 6391.96 6711.56 172 4889.02 5133.47 5390.15 5659.65 5942.64 6239.77 6551.76 6879.34 173 5011.25 5261.81 5524.90 5801.14 6091.20 6395.76 6715.55 7051.33 174 5136.53 5393.35 5663.02 5946.17 6243.48 6555.66 6883.44 7227.61 175 5264.94 5528.19 5804.60 6094.83 6399.57 6719.55 7055.53 7408.30 176 5396.56 5666.39 5949.71 6247.20 6559.56 6887.54 7231.91 7593.51 177 5531.48 5808.05 6098.46 6403.38 6723.55 7059.72 7412.71 7783.35 178 5669.77 5953.25 6250.92 6563.46 6891.64 7236.22 7598.03 7977.93 179 5811.51 6102.09 6407.19 6727.55 7063.93 7417.12 7787.98 8177.38 180 5956.80 6254.64 6567.37 6895.74 7240.53 7602.55 7982.68 8381.81 181 6105.72 6411.00 6731.55 7068.13 7421.54 7792.62 8182.25 8591.36 182 6258.36 6571.28 6899.84 7244.84 7607.08 7987.43 8386.80 8806.14 183 6414.82 6735.56 7072.34 7425.96 7797.25 8187.12 8596.47 9026.30 184 6575.19 6903.95 7249.15 7611.60 7992.19 8391.79 8811.38 9251.95 185 6739.57 7076.55 7430.38 7801.89 8191.99 8601.59 9031.67 9483.25 186 6908.06 7253.46 7616.14 7996.94 8396.79 8816.63 9257.46 9720.33 187 7080.76 7434.80 7806.54 8196.87 8606.71 9037.04 9488.90 9963.34 188 7257.78 7620.67 8001.70 8401.79 8821.88 9262.97 9726.12 10212.43 189 7439.22 7811.19 8201.74 8611.83 9042.42 9494.54 9969.27 10467.74 190 7625.21 8006.47 8406.79 8827.13 9268.48 9731.91 10218.50 10729.43 191 7815.84 8206.63 8616.96 9047.81 9500.20 9975.21 10473.97 10997.66 192 8011.23 8411.79 8832.38 9274.00 9737.70 10224.59 10735.82 11272.61 193 8211.51 8622.09 9053.19 9505.85 9981.14 10480.20 11004.21 11554.42 194 8416.80 8837.64 9279.52 9743.50 10230.67 10742.21 11279.32 11843.28 195 8627.22 9058.58 9511.51 9987.09 10486.44 11010.76 11561.30 12139.36 196 8842.90 9285.05 9749.30 10236.76 10748.60 11286.03 11850.33 12442.85 197 9063.97 9517.17 9993.03 10492.68 11017.32 11568.18 12146.59 12753.92 198 9290.57 9755.10 10242.86 10755.00 11292.75 11857.39 12450.25 13072.77 199 9522.84 9998.98 10498.93 11023.87 11575.07 12153.82 12761.51 13399.59 200 9760.91 10248.95 10761.40 11299.47 11864.44 12457.67 13080.55 13734.58 EXHIBIT B - 2026/2027

CITY OF SUSANVILLE GLOBAL RANGE AND STEP MATRIX
JULY 1, 2026 - JUNE 30, 2027 ADMINISTRATIVE MOU
BIWEEKLY - 26 PAY PERIODS PER YEAR
RANGE

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6530

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE AUTHORIZING A 2.68% INCREASE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BARGAINING UNIT SALARY MATRIX EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026, THROUGH AND
INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2027
WHEREAS, the City of Susanville and representatives from the Administrative Bargaining Unit have negotiated a labor agreement according to the requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the Administrative Bargaining Unit has ratified the respective agreement; and
WHEREAS, the agreement has been negotiated within the parameters established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.B. of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states the Administrative Unit employees will receive an annual salary matrix adjustment based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) percent increase as reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the West Area; and WHEREAS, the maximum salary matrix increase per fiscal year will be 3.00%; and WHEREAS, the CPI increase will be applied to the previous year’s adopted salary matrix, ensuring that each new matrix reflects the adjustment over the prior year. The revised salary matrix for each year will be memorialized by resolution of the City Council prior to June 30 for effective change occurring each July 1st of this agreement; and WHEREAS, the determined salary matrix increase for the fiscal year 2026/2027 is

2.68% which has been rounded to the nearest one-hundredth and calculated as per instructed in the Administrative Bargaining Unit MOU.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby approves the 2026/2027 Fiscal Year Salary Matrix as attached to this Resolution for the Memorandum of Understanding with the Administrative Bargaining Unit.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:_____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 7.A.

City Manager Direct
Review
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Dan Newton, City Manager
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6533 Initiating the Annexation of APN 107-280-017 and Adjacent Public Right of Way Along State Route 36 from the Property Line Across the Highway Into the City Limits of Susanville and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application for Annexation of the Parcel to the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission, Resolution No. 26-6534
Amending the General Plan to Redesignate APN# 107-280-017 to General Commercial/Shopping Center
Presented By: Dan Newton, City Manager
Summary: Detailed Staff Report Attached
Fiscal Impact: None
Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6533, Initiating the Annexation of APN 107-280-017 and Adjacent Public Right of Way Along State Route 36 from the Property Line Across the Highway INTO the City Limits of Susanville and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application for Annexation of the Parcel to the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission, Resolution No. 26-6534, Amending the General Plan to Redesignate APN# 107- 280-017 to General Commercial/Shopping Center
Attachments:

1. Detailed Staff Report - City Council

2. Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report 04.15.2026

3. Attachment 2 - 26-6533 Annexation

4. Attachment 2 - Exhibit A CEQA Findings of Fact

5. Attachment 3 - 26-6534 General Plan Amendment

1 FILE NO. UP/RZ/GPA/AR/ANNX #2024-021

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2026
APPLICANT Love’s Travel Stops
OWNER Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, CA
REPRESENTATIVE Lane Engineers, Inc, Tulare, CA
REQUEST General Plan Map Amendment and Annexation
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO 107-280-017
PARCEL SIZE 79.6 acres
LOCATION Northwest corner of State Hwy 36 and Skyline Road EXISTING ZONING Limited Industrial District (M-L) (Lassen County Zoning Map)
SURROUNDING ZONING North: Open Space along the River and C-2 East, South, West: Lassen County Zoning
SURROUNDING LAND USE North: Susan River and retail shopping center anchored by Safeway grocery store on north side of
the river
East: SR 36 and vacant land on east side of the
highway
South: Union Pacific Railroad right of way and vacant
land south of the railroad right of way
West: Vacant land

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

DESIGNATION
Industrial Park (Lassen County General Plan)
Light Industrial/Business Park (City of Susanville
General Plan)

PROPOSED GENERAL

PLAN DESIGNATION
General Commercial Shopping Center (City of
Susanville)

ENVIRONMENTAL

DETERMINATION
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared (SCH
No. 2025011078)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

City Council is considering taking action to allow for the development of the Love’s Travel

2 Stop which requires a General Plan Land Use Map amendment and annexation of the parcel into the City of Susanville. A description of the project, analyses to determine consistency with City policy, compliance with City regulations, recommended conditions of approval, and findings to support the Council’s decision making process are included in Attachment 1: Planning Commission Staff Report for File No. UP/RZ/GPA/AR/ANNX #2024-021 dated April 15, 2026. The analyses support the City’s adoption of the following:
• Resolution authorizing application to LAFCO for Annexation (Attachment 2) • Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment 3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project description for the proposed Love’s Travel Stop can be found in Attachment 1.

ANALYSIS:

Overview
Approval of a General Plan Amendment requires that the project be consistent with the City’s General Plan and comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan and compliance with the Zoning Ordinance is included in Attachment 1.

Annexation Analysis
California Government Code (CGC) Section 56000, the “Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000” (the “Act”) establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including city incorporations and annexations. The unincorporated project area that is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) contains one 79.6-acre parcel. The purposes of the Act are to promote orderly growth and development, encourage logical and contiguous boundary adjustments, support efficient provision of municipal services, discourage urban sprawl by incorporating territory within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and promote fiscal responsibility and local accountability for urban development.

In June 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-4509 approving growth and annexation policies to guide future growth within the City and its sphere of influence. The proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable goals and polices of Resolution No. 09-4509 in that the annexation:

1. aligns with the City’s growth goals by annexing land within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI);

2. is contiguous with city limits;

3. can be efficiently served by municipal services including roads, public sewer, and public water;

4. allows the City to control the type, quality and location of development that is currently outside the city limits, but within the SOI;

5. has a positive net effect on the City’s fiscal stability; and

3 6. preserves the natural resources associated with the Susan River by maintaining a buffer in excess of 300 feet.

The subject property is located adjacent to existing City limits and within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and the annexation represents a logical extension of municipal boundaries. As discussed in Attachment 1, the proposed annexation is also consistent with the applicable General Plan policies in the land use element. A resolution authorizing City staff to submit an application for annexation to LAFCO has been prepared for Council approval (Attachment 2).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Approval of the General Plan Amendment Resolution and the Resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for annexation to LAFCO are discretionary actions subject to CEQA. As discussed in Attachment 1, an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the project. The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2026.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of an application to the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of the subject property.

2. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map changing the land use designation of the subject property from Light Industrial/Business Park to General Commercial Shopping Center
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Planning Commission Staff Report for File No.

UP/RZ/GPA/AR/ANNX #2024-021 dated April 15, 2026.

Attachment 2: Resolution Authorizing Application of Annexation to LAFCO Exhibit A CEQA Finding of Fact
Attachment 3: Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Map

1 FILE NO. UP/RZ/GPA/AR/ANNX #2024-021

CITY OF SUSANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
April 15, 2026
APPLICANT Love’s Travel Stops
OWNER Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, CA
REPRESENTATIVE Lane Engineers, Inc, Tulare, CA
REQUEST General Plan Map Amendment, Annexation, Zoning
Map Amendment, Architectural & Site Plan Review,
Use Permit, Sign Permit
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO 107-280-017
PARCEL SIZE 79.6 acres
LOCATION Northwest corner of State Hwy 36 and Skyline Road EXISTING ZONING Limited Industrial District (M-L) (Lassen County Zoning Map)
SURROUNDING ZONING North: Open Space along the River and C-2 East, South, West: Lassen County Zoning
SURROUNDING LAND USE North: Susan River and retail shopping center anchored by Safeway grocery store on north side of
the river
East: SR 36 and vacant land on east side of the
highway
South: Union Pacific Railroad right of way and vacant
land south of the railroad right of way
West: Vacant land

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

DESIGNATION
Industrial Park (Lassen County General Plan)
Light Industrial/Business Park (City of Susanville
General Plan)

PROPOSED GENERAL

PLAN DESIGNATION
General Commercial Shopping Center (City of
Susanville)

ENVIRONMENTAL

DETERMINATION
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared (SCH
No. 2025011078)

2 COMMENTS RECEIVED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS:

1. Building Department: No comments received.

2. Fire Department: Through existing service and mutual aid, the Department would be able to respond to the increase in demand. Conditions of approval have been added to implement Fire Department requirements.

3. Police Department: The proposed development would increase the area and demand for police services, including monitoring for potential traffic violations, disturbances, or safety concerns and additional resources would likely be needed.

4. Public Works Department: Conditions of approval have been added to ensure implementation of city road and public facility standards.

5. Susanville Sanitary District: The District issued a statement of intent to own and operate the sewer main line serving the Love’s Travel Stop and requested that the City submit a joint annexation application to LAFCO to include the Sanitary Sewer District.

6. Lassen Municipal Utility District: None received.

7. Caltrans District 2: A comment letter from Caltrans was received and is included/addressed in the FEIR.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Planning Commission is considering taking action on the following entitlements for the proposed Susanville Travel Stop: recommending a General Plan Land Use Amendment, Architectural & Site Plan Review (ASPR), a Use Permit, and a Sign Permit. As these are discretionary actions, they are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to project approvals. The following staff report includes a description of the project, analyses to determine consistency with City policy, compliance with City regulations, recommended conditions of approval, and findings to support the Commission’s decision making process. The analyses support the Commissions’ adoption of the following:
• Resolution Certifying the Susanville Travel Stop Project Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 2)
• Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment 3)
• Resolution conditionally approving Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Sign Permit (Attachment 4)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Overview

3 A complete application prepared by Lane Engineers was received by the City of Susanville on October 10, 2024 to construct a full-service Love’s Travel Stop on approximately 14.15 acres of a vacant 79.6-acre parcel (APN 107-280-017) located immediately south of Susanville city limits and west of State Route (SR) 36.

The project entails annexation of the 79.6-acre parcel, amending the City of Susanville General Plan land use designation, authorizing annexation proceedings with the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), pre-zoning the parcel (to take effect upon annexation), and land use entitlements for development of the project (Architectural and Site Plan Review, Use Permit, and Sign Permit). Pre-zoning of the parcel will be initiated by ordinance at a subsequent public hearing. Figure 1- Project Vicinity identifies the parcel to be annexed, the portion of the parcel to be developed, and the City boundary in the vicinity of the project site. As entitlements are discretionary, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared in full compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements established therein.

As proposed, the Travel Stop would include a gas station with auto and truck fueling islands, convenience store, two fast food restaurants (Dunkin’ Donuts and Arby’s), truck rest area, an RV overnight parking area with dump station, and dog park. Additional features include above ground diesel storage tanks and below ground fuel storage tanks, trash enclosure, signage, on-site improvements, and landscaping. The Project also includes offsite improvements within the public right-of-way including an extension of Skyline Road for access, and extension of gas, water and sanitary sewer lines to the project site.

4 Figure 1: Project Vicinity. Source: Susanville Travel Stope Project Draft EIR, 2025.

Land Use and Zoning
The project site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), which is an area that has been identified for potential expansion of the City limits in the future. As such, the site has a City of Susanville General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial Business Park.

This is consistent with the Lassen County General Plan designation of Industrial Park.

Additionally, in the recently adopted City of Susanville Land Use Element (Figure LUD4), the site was pre-zoned as Manufacturing (M).

The applicant requests a General Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation of the site to General Commercial Shopping Center. The General Commercial Shopping Center land use designation allows a wide range of facilities for the sale of goods and provision of personal services. When applied along thoroughfares,

5 it is intended to accommodate a variety of commercial uses which include fast food and drive-through restaurants or food service, restaurants, service stations, and similar uses.

The applicant also requests a Zoning Map Amendment to change the site’s zoning district to C-2 General Commercial Shopping Center. Although the list of conditionally permitted uses within the C-2 zone does not expressly mention a truck and travel stop, section

17.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code does include service stations, fast food restaurants (including drive-in and drive-through), recreation vehicle park, and shopping centers 80,000 square feet or larger in size (includes all buildings within the shopping center). Additionally, section 17.36.040 of the City’s Zoning Code allows other uses permitted in the C-2 district that are found to be similar in character and impact to those listed in Sections 17.36.020 and 17.36.030.

Site Plan/Development
The applicant proposes to develop 14.15 acres on a vacant 79.6-acre parcel into a travel center at the intersection of Skyline Road and SR-36 (Main St.). A new 7,943 square foot convenience store and two new fast-food restaurants (1,588 sf and 3,474 sf) with a drivethrough will be the center of the development.

The site would be accessible from a new extension of Skyline Road and would provide a truck stop with 70 truck vehicle parking spaces, a four-position truck fueling station, truck scale and four 12,000 gallon above ground diesel tanks, and trash enclosure accessible from the western driveway. The eastern driveway would provide access to a twelveposition passenger vehicle fueling station, ten overnight RV parking spaces, RV dump station, a 1,000-gallon above ground propane tank, dog park, bicycle parking, five RV parking spaces, three EV charging spaces, four ADA parking spaces, and 46 standard vehicle parking spaces. A 30,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tank and a 20,000-gallon split diesel/premium unleaded tank, and 20,000-gallon below ground diesel exhaust fluid storage tank will be located on the northern side of the development.

Landscaping and bioretention facilities are proposed around the edges of the proposed development. The Overall Site Plan is provided in Figure 2 and in Attachment 1.

6 Source: Lane Engineering, Inc. 2024
Figure 2: Overall Site Plan
Architectural Design
The project proposes the construction of a new 13,005 square foot slab-on-grade structure that would be used for a convenience store (7,943-square feet) and two fast food restaurants (5,062 square feet) with a drive-thru on the south side of the building.

The building will also include men’s and women’s restrooms, showers, and a public laundry facility.

The proposed building would have an overall height of 23 feet with a maximum height of 25 feet on columns/projections. Building access will be provided through three sets of glass doors (one for each use) on the building frontage.

The exterior design includes a combination of textures, windows and exterior siding.

Exterior materials will be a combination of modular brick façade, sand-pebbled Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS), painted metal, fiber cement panels, fiber cement lap siding, and glass windowpanes. The design includes a red painted awning along the

7 Arby’s section, and pink and orange sand-pebbled texture finish on the Dunkin Donuts frontage. Signage for all three businesses is proposed to be integrated along the front elevation of the building.

The project will also construct canopies over the fueling stations which will have a maximum height of approximately 21± feet. The canopies will be painted yellow, orange and red and incorporate Love’s logo and branding on all four sides.

A gated locking trash enclosure with trash compactor, recycling, and grease collection bins will be located inside the western driveway. No size or specifications for the trash enclosure were provided.

Circulation and Access
The site will be accessed from a newly constructed road that will extend Skyline Road approximately 1,200 feet along the project site’s southerly property line from the intersection of SR-36 to the project site’s western entrance. The new road will be a total of 54 feet wide with a center turn lane and one travel lane in each direction. SR-36 would be restriped to create a new right turn pocket from the northbound lane and a new left hand turn pocket from the southbound lane.

A 10-foot-wide sidewalk will be provided along the project’s Skyline Road frontage from the intersection with SR-36 to the west entrance. No pedestrian access is proposed along the SR-36 frontage. Pedestrian access to the development is provided by a network of internal sidewalks and crosswalks to provide safe movement between the project components. The project will dedicate 0.57 acres of land to City/Caltrans at the intersection of Skyline Road and SR-36.

The internal circulation network separates commercial trucking traffic from automobile and RV traffic by providing separate entrances and areas that are separated by a 33-footwide landscaped area.

Off- and On-site Improvements
In addition to the new access road, the project proposes connecting to the City’s water and gas services and the Susanville Sanitary Sewer District sewer system. New water and gas lines would be trenched under the Susan River and conveyed to the project site via a trench within the outer limits of the City’s right-of-way from Johnstonville Road via Skyline Road.

Wastewater services would be provided by the Susanville Sanitary District. The project includes a new 1,800-foot-long sewer line route that would connect from the site at a point approximately 600 ft north from the SR 36/Riverside Drive intersection and would be bored under the Caltrans right-of-way from the west side of SR 36 to the east side of SR

36. The sewer pipeline would be hung from the eastern (downstream) side of the SR 36 bridge over the Susan River, and tie into the existing sanitary sewer manhole at the SR 36/Riverside Drive intersection. Upon finalization of sewer construction, the District would take ownership and operate the sewer line.

8 Electricity would be provided by the Lassen Municipal Utility District. Roof-top solar panels would be installed in accordance with the California Energy Code requirements and would produce an estimated 51,000 kWh/year. Existing overhead electrical lines are located along Skyline Road and adjacent to SR 36 and those that are within the construction footprint would be relocated prior to construction and the project would tie-in to these.

Stormwater would be treated in stormwater bioretention basins installed onsite. From the onsite bioretention facilities, stormwater would flow through a new underground drainage pipe that would discharge southeast to an existing 24” drainage culvert located under SR

36. Any onsite overflow would be captured by the drainage swale along the abandoned Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way before flowing into the existing culvert.

Solid waste collection would be provided by C&S Waste Solutions.

Landscaping, Lighting, and Site Furnishings
As shown in Figure 3, landscaping includes both planting areas and surface treatments (1.5-inch and 4- to 6-inch rock) over approximately 122,255 square feet of the project site.

Landscaped areas account for approximately 23 percent of the developed portion of the site, and the total pervious area is approximately 43 percent. A total of 89 trees are proposed, including 72 trees in 24-inch box containers and 17 trees in 15-gallon containers. In addition, three species of shrubs in 1-gallon containers and three species in 5-gallon containers are proposed.

A dog park area surfaced with hybrid Bermuda grass sod is proposed north of the overnight RV spaces. Other landscaped areas would be covered with 4- to 6-inch cobble rock and 1½-inch rock mulch. Bioretention areas would be covered with a three-inch layer of organic mulch, and parking areas would be paved with asphalt concrete.

On site lighting would consist of high-mast LED fixtures and LED canopy lighting. Lighting would be mounted on 43’ poles in truck areas and 33’ poles in auto areas. Lighting would be interspersed along the outside perimeter of parking areas, at the driveway entrances, and throughout the interior of the site. Specifications on exterior building/façade lighting was not provided.

Commented [HG1]: City: Do we need any additional
conditions or will serve letter to ensure trash services?e Commented [DN2R1]: Gated and enclosed trash bin
area already addressed. No will serve letter should be
required.

9 Source: Sierra Designs, Inc. 2025
Figure 3: Landscape Plan.

Open Space
The project is located on a 79.6-acre parcel and proposes development on 14.15 acres.

The remainder of the site will be undeveloped.

Signage
The project includes a request for a 50-foot-tall freestanding sign along SR 36 with a sign face area of 1,171 square feet The purpose of this request is to allow truck drivers to plan

10 their maneuver and exit SR 36 to turn into the site. The 50-foot-tall sign is designed to include logos for Love’s and Arby’s, at the top, the gas prices in the middle of the sign, and “Dunkin’” and “Welcome of Susanville” signs at the bottom. Gas prices would be digital displays and the other signs would be internally illuminated cabinet signs.

The project also proposes a second freestanding sign along Skyline Road with a height of 25 feet and a sign face area of 406 square feet, and a third freestanding sign is proposed above the truck scale with a height of 21.5 feet and a sign face area of 230 square feet. In addition, signage is proposed on the building façade for each business on the primary frontage and for one business on each of the side elevations. Love’s signage is also integrated into the design of the fueling canopies on all four sides.

ANALYSIS:

Overview
The approval of the requested land use entitlements require that the project be consistent with the City’s General Plan and comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Entitlement specific analysis is provided for ASPR, the Use Permit, and Sign Permit. A discussion of the environmental review process and the environmental impacts of the project are also discussed.

General Plan Consistency Analysis
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Attachment 3, as discussed herein. Per CA Government Code section 65358(a), if the City Council deems it to be in the public interest, it may amend the City’s General Plan. Amendments of mandatory general plan elements (which includes the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element) may not occur more than four times during any calendar year (CAGC 65358(b). The proposed amendment would be the City’s first General Plan amendment in 2026.

A site’s zoning district must be consistent with its General Plan land use designation which requires the City Council to adopt an ordinance pre-zoning the site. The applicant has requested pre-zoning and a condition of approval has been added to require the adoption of the pre-zoning ordinance and annexation of the site into the City limits prior to any entitlements taking effect.

Recommended Condition of Approval

5. Land use entitlements approved shall only take effect after the effective date of the City Council Ordinance pre-zoning the property General Commercial Shopping (C-2) and after the annexation of the project site into the City of is final and recorded.

A summary of the project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan is provided below. A detailed analysis the project’s consistency with each applicable policy is provided in Attachment 5.

Land Use Element
The project site is currently located in unincorporated Lassen County and designated

11 Industrial Park under the Susanville Vicinity Area Plan (County General Plan). As the site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), it is also designated on the City of Susanville General Plan land use map as Light Manufacturing. The applicant requests annexation to the City of Susanville. The Annexation request is consistent with Land Use Policy LUD6.1 to annex contiguous land as well as policies LUD 6.3 to encourage annexation prior to development, and Policy 6.6 to extend utilities and municipal services upon annexation and in conformance with the City of Susanville General Plan.

The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to redesignate the property to General Commercial/Shopping Center. The General Commercial/Shopping Center designation is intended to accommodate a wide range of commercial uses serving both local and regional needs. When located along major transportation corridors, the designation contemplates uses such as service stations, restaurants (including drivethrough facilities), and related commercial services. The proposed Travel Stop includes fuel sales (automobile and truck), convenience retail, quick-service restaurant with drivethrough, and RV-related services and is consistent with the types of uses contemplated within this General Plan land use designation.

Additionally, Policy LUD-3.3 which requires distinctive and high-quality building design is addressed through the Architectural Site Plan Review and conditioned accordingly (see below).

General Plan Policy LUD-5.5 states that the City shall encourage agricultural land preservation within and outside the city boundaries. While the project site was used for agricultural purposes in the past, it is currently vacant and it is designated in both the County and City General Plans for industrial development and would therefore not conflict with this policy.

Additionally, Policy LUD-8.2 requires that the City ensure zoning designations and maps are consistent with the City’s Land Use Map. The applicant has requested a Zoning Map Amendment to zone the site as General Commercial/Shopping Center (C-2) which would be consistent with this policy.

Upon approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and with site specific conditions of approval, the Travel Stop would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation and the goals and policies referenced in the sections below.

Community Character
The General Plan promotes appropriate siting of commercial development along major transportation corridors, high-quality architectural design, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and mitigation of operational impacts such as noise, lighting, and traffic.

Through adherence to the City’s Design Guidelines and the Architectural and Site Plan Review and Sign Permit process, the community character and commercial development policies of the General Plan are implemented.

The project’s location along SR 36, with access from a signalized intersection and

12 separated circulation for trucks and passenger vehicles, supports corridor-oriented commercial development while minimizing conflicts.

Policy L of the Community Character Element requires the City to provide public access to and along the Susan River from the nearest public streets and walks. The purpose of this policy is to create a riverfront route for pedestrians and bicyclists along the river's edge for its full length within Susanville as is further clarified by Action 43 in the Open Space, Parks, Recreation, and Childcare element, which directs the City to obtain easements to accommodate the facilities and construct trails as shown in Figure 7-4 of the City of Susanville General Plan. To implement this policy and action, a condition of approval requires the property owner to provide a public access easement or irrevocable offer of dedication of land to the City of Susanville along the Susan River for the entire length which borders/is within the property.

Recommended Condition of Approval

6. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall provide an official copy of the property title and parcel map for recordation showing an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Susanville of the portion of the property that borders the Susan River as follows: Approximately 3,000 feet in length starting at the existing Susanville City limit line at SR-36 and extending to the northwestern property line and 20 feet wide starting at the southern top-of-bank of the Susan River.

Policy ac and ab of the Community Character Element provide guidance on signage including reducing the number of overly large, bright signs and making signs more attractive and readable. Through the Sign Permit process and related conditions of approval as discussed in the Sign Permit section below, the project is consistent with the General Plan.

As conditioned, the project is consistent with General Plan policies related to community character and commercial development quality.

Circulation Element Consistency
The Circulation Element emphasizes roadway safety, Complete Streets principles, and efficient function of major corridors including SR 36.

Access via the existing signalized Skyline Road/SR 36 intersection, along with proposed turn lanes and circulation improvements, supports safety and operational efficiency.

With implementation of proposed roadway improvements and through the conditions established by the Public Works department, the project is consistent with Circulation Element policies promoting safety and corridor functionality.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

7. The project proponent must provide a grading plan and a drainage report demonstrating that the project will not have negative impacts to the state highway and its drainage features. The report must include an analysis of the proposed retention

13 feature (s).

8. Include 8-phase signaling for the intersection of SR/36 and Skyline Road.

9. Provide a fair share contribution toward the construction of a bike lane along the property frontage on State Route 36.

Economic Development Goals.

The General Plan supports commercial development that strengthens the City’s economic base and provides services to residents and visitors. The project would provide commercial services to regional travelers and residents, generate tax revenue, and create employment opportunities. The project supports the General Plan’s economic development objectives by expanding commercial services and contributing to the local tax base and employment opportunities.

Community Health, Safety, and Conservation Policies.

The EIR evaluates environmental topics including air quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural resources. In general, implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and compliance with applicable regulations, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to environmental protection and public health and safety.

Policy g requires that the City consider the maintenance and improvement of air quality as part of development review for new construction and/or expansion of existing uses or structures. In order to limit the effects of the project on both air quality and potential noise, the following conditions of approval are recommended for consistency with General Plan policies.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

10.Signage shall be posted in the overnight truck parking area with “IDLING LIMITED TO 5 MIN.”

11.The site operator shall require Recreational Vehicles to plug into the site’s electrical services and the use of generators by Recreational Vehicles shall be prohibited and signage posted accordingly.

12.The Applicant shall require all project contractors to use properly maintained mufflers on construction vehicles to meet EPA standards established under the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 for new equipment.

13.During construction, stationary construction equipment, such as compressors, shall be placed as far as possible from the residential areas to the south.

Additionally, Action program 50 directs the City to use development review and the zoning ordinance to require project features that enhance police and neighbor surveillance of property, and that deter criminal activity. To address potential safety issues, a condition of approval has been recommended.

Recommended Condition of Approval

14.Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, security surveillance video cameras

14 shall be installed and maintained in good working order to provide coverage on a 24- hour basis of all internal areas and building entrances. The security surveillance cameras shall be oriented in a manner that provides clear and certain identification of all individuals within those areas. Cameras shall remain active at all times and shall be capable of operating under any lighting condition. Security video must use standard industry format to support criminal investigations and shall be maintained for 60 days.

Zoning Code Compliance Analysis
The project proposes a zoning amendment from the pre-zoned Manufacturing (M) to General Commercial and Shopping Center (C-2), which requires adoption of a Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance. As noted above, a condition of approval has been added to clarify that entitlements will not take effect until the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to prezone the site takes effect, and the site has been annexed into the City of Susanville. The proposed zoning amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration at a future public hearing.

According to Susanville Municipal Code (SMC) Section 17.36.010, the purpose of the C-2 district is “to provide for a wide range of facilities for the sale of goods and provision of personal services.” Properties located along major thoroughfares within the C-2 district may accommodate a variety of commercial uses including outdoor sales, fast-food and take-out food service, restaurants, personal care services, automobile repair (excluding heavy trucks), rental services, motels, automobile sales and service, offices, and similar commercial uses.

Uses permitted by right in the C-2 district include “any general retail commercial structure or shopping center under 80,000 square feet in size.” Uses allowed subject to approval of a Use Permit include “fast food restaurants, including drive-in and drive-through restaurants,” “drive-through establishments,” “recreational vehicle parks,” and “service stations.” The proposed travel stop combines elements of these uses, including fuel sales, fast-food restaurants with drive-through service, overnight RV parking, and related traveler services.

Although a travel stop is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the C-2 district, the City Manager determined that the proposed use is similar in character to uses permitted in the district (e.g. fast food and drive-through restaurants or food service, restaurants, service stations, and similar uses). This determination complies with the authority established under SMC Section 17.36.040 (Other Permitted Uses).

SMC Section 17.36.050 establishes development standards for projects within the C-2 district. The proposed project generally complies with the applicable quantitative standards for building height, setbacks, parking, and drive-through stacking as detailed in Attachment 6. However, to ensure compliance with the development standards in this section, conditions of approval have been added.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

15 15.Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation drawings for the trash enclosure demonstrating compliance with SMC Section 17.36.050(J).

16.Prior to issuance of building permits, final site plans shall be submitted and include one loading space meeting the requirements of SMC Section 17.100.120 (minimum 12 feet by 30 feet).

Landscaping Standards Compliance
Zoning Code Section 17.96.040 (A) provides the landscaping requirements for parking areas with five or more spaces and 20 or more spaces which includes the following requirements:
• A minimum 10-foot landscaped strip along public street right-of-way lines • One tree per 30 feet of street frontage
• One shrub per 25 square feet of planting area (grass may be substituted for shrubs)
• Ten percent of the parking area must be landscaped.
• Landscaping must be located within or adjacent to the parking area. • One tree per eight parking spaces must be provided.
• A landscaped area at least 140 square feet in size is required for every 12 parking spaces.
• Automobile parking areas are proposed along both project frontages, and RV parking is proposed along the SR 36 frontage. These parking areas are approximately 385 feet wide and are set back approximately 300 feet from SR 36.

SMC Section 17.96.040(B) allows landscaping to consist of both plant and non-plant materials provided that at least 50 percent of the required landscaped area consists of living plant material, based on mature plant size.

Additionally, SMC Section 17.96.040(F) requires that all plant material within a 30 foot triangle at the intersection of streets, and a 15 foot triangle at the intersection of driveways and streets, shall be no more than two feet in height above the curb level, except for trees which are trimmed so that no branches extend lower than six feet above the curb. A condition has been added to require compliance with this standard.

SMC Section 17.96.040(G) allows for modification of the above standards to achieve an equal or greater excellence in arrangement, design or attractiveness than would be realized by the normal standards of this section if a use permit is obtained.

As proposed, the project includes three primary parking areas:

1. South Parking Area – approximately 16,900 sq. ft. with 24 automobile parking spaces

2. East Parking Area – approximately 100,000 sq. ft. with 32 automobile spaces and 15 RV spaces

3. Truck Parking Area – approximately 200,000 sq. ft. with 70 truck parking spaces A 20-foot-wide strip of cobble rock mulch surrounds most parking areas, except where parking areas are adjacent to buildings and pedestrian walkways and a 60-foot-wide strip

16 of rock mulch is proposed along the SR 36 frontage; however, the plans do not show trees or shrubs along the SR 36 right-of-way line.

Parking areas along Skyline Road are set back at least 45 feet from the property line and are separated from the roadway by a 30-foot-wide landscaped strip containing trees spaced approximately 30 feet apart. No shrubs or grass are proposed within this frontage landscape area.

As designed, the project does not comply with the landscape standards. However,

17.96.040(G) allows for an alternative landscape plan with a use permit. As the strict application of the landscaping standards could create visual obstacles and impediments to circulation, landscaping conditions have been established that require trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the site.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

17.All plant material and signage within a 30 foot triangle at the intersection of streets, and a 15 foot triangle at the intersection of driveways and streets, shall be no more than two feet in height above the curb level, except for trees which are trimmed so that no branches extend lower than six feet above the curb.

18.To comply with the tree requirement along SR 36 frontage, the landscape plan shall be revised to include one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage planted within 110 feet of the right-of-way and along the northern boundary of the developed area and freestanding sign access road.

19.One shrub per 25 square feet of the required 10-foot planting area shall be provided along both the SR 36 and Skyline Road frontages and along the northern boundary of the developed area and freestanding sign access road. Grass may be substituted for shrubs at the applicant’s discretion.

20.Living plant material shall be added to landscaped areas surrounding the parking areas to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the required landscape area will consist of living plant material at maturity.

21.The site operator and property owner are responsible for ensuring all landscaping is kept clean and free of trash and debris and kept in healthy condition and consistent with the landscaped design in the final approved plans.

Architectural and Site Plan Review
Pursuant to Susanville Municipal Code (SMC) Section 17.36.050(K), Architectural and Site Plan Review (ASPR) is required and subject to the City of Susanville Design Guidelines, adopted July 17, 2002, as may be amended. The Design Guidelines address the following project elements: site plan, architecture, off-street parking, landscaping, exterior lighting, signs, and art. A summary of the project’s consistency with the guidelines is provided below and a detailed listing of each applicable guideline and the project’s consistency with each guideline is provided in Attachment 7.

The proposed Love’s Travel Stop has been designed in a manner generally consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines pertaining to site planning, grading, drainage, and integration with natural features. The 13,005-square-foot convenience store building has

17 a maximum height of approximately 23–25 feet and incorporates articulated façades and neutral base colors with limited accent colors consistent with the design guidelines. The project includes perimeter and internal landscaping, including bioretention areas serving both aesthetic and stormwater functions.

Conditions of approval are required to ensure the project is consistent with equipment screening requirements, lighting guidelines, landscaping, and signage. Signage is analyzed and conditions are discussed below under Sign Permit.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

22.Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view.

23.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a final plan set showing all proposed lighting specifications. No lighting shall be installed above 24’ in height and shall have full cutoff fixtures and shielding of the light source in compliance with glare and spillover standards.

The architectural character of surrounding development along this section of SR 36 is predominantly commercial in nature, typically consisting of stucco exterior finishes and flat roofs with mansard-style accents and parking areas located between the building and adjacent streets. Therefore, as conditioned, the architectural and general appearance of the buildings, structures, and grounds are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the use will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City. Approval of the ASPR is included in the Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, & Sign Permit Resolution (Attachment 4).

Use Permit Review
Approval of a Use Permit requires the Planning Commission to make the following finding:

The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use, building, or facilities will not be detrimental to, or contrary to, the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, nor will it be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

As discussed in this staff report, the proposed development, with site specific conditions of approval would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Design Guidelines and comply with the development standards for the C-2 zoning district. Further, as discussed in the Environmental Impact Report, the project would have less than significant impacts on the environment. As such, the proposed travel stop, which includes overnight RV parking, truck parking, convenience store, two fast-food restaurants, and fuel sales, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to its design, site layout, and location. Approval of the Use Permit is included in the draft Resolution approving Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, & Sign Permit (Attachment 4).

Sign Permit Review

18 The applicant proposes 11 wall signs on the building and eight on the fuel dispenser canopies, three freestanding pole-mounted signs, and eight directional signs. Per SMC section 17.128.070, building signs shall not exceed a combined size of one-and-one-half square feet in area for each linear foot of building frontage. Two freestanding signs not to exceed 150 square feet each (75 square feet per side for a double-faced sign), 15 feet in height, and set back a minimum of 12 feet from the road right-of-way are allowed.

Directional signs (referred to as “incidental and traffic control signs” in the SMC) are exempt from a sign permit.

SMC section 17.18.130(F) allows exemptions from the sign standards for sign size and height, among other criteria, subject to Planning Commission approval of a use permit.

To approve a use permit for a sign the applicant is required “to demonstrate that practical difficulties or hardships would otherwise be caused and the exception applied for is the most suitable and effective in relation to the location or terrain of the site or from the standpoint of the intended viewer.” A total of 11 wall signs with an aggregate sign face area of 347.4 square feet are proposed. Six wall signs are proposed on the front (east) elevation, one is proposed on the left (south) elevation, and four are proposed on the right (north) elevation. Based on the building frontage, the maximum wall sign area allowed is 403 square feet. One 23.39- square foot sign is proposed on each side of both fuel dispenser canopies for a total of eight wall signs on the canopies. Preliminary plans for the location and sizes of the signs are detailed in Attachment 6. Except for the freestanding signs, all the proposed signs comply with the criteria of the SMC.

A 50-foot tall freestanding sign with a double-sided sign face area of 1,171 square feet (including both sides) is proposed along the SR 36 frontage. The sign would contain a total of 60 characters (letters and numerals) with one sign for each of the three businesses on the site, two fuel price signs, and a “Welcome to Susanville” sign. As proposed, the freestanding sign face area and sign height exceed the maximums allowed by over 780% and 330%, respectively. A second freestanding sign (identified in the plans as a “Street Sign”) is proposed along Skyline Road just west of the first driveway entrance. It is 25 feet tall and has a total sign face area of 406 square feet (including both sides). The sign has one sign for each business on the site and five fuel price signs. A third freestanding sign is proposed above the truck scale with a height of 21.5 feet and a sign face area of 230 square feet (including both sides). The truck scale is adjacent to the west side of the truck fuel dispenser canopy and would be shielded from Skyline Road by the canopy and is setback approximately 700 feet from SR 36.

Using the US Sign Council (USSC) guidance for signage size, the applicant’s analysis for the freestanding sign along SR 36 shows that sign area of 278 square feet per side is required. The applicant’s analysis accounts for 60 characters (all letters and numerals) and a travel speed of 50 miles per hour. Per the USSC guidance a Viewer Reaction Time of approximately 8 seconds is appropriate and for which 588 feet represents the approximate distance required for drivers to detect a sign, read the information, and safely maneuver toward the destination. Using the USSC’s formula to calculate text height

19 legible at 588 feet, the copy on the sign should be about 16 inches high and to accommodate 60 characters, space between the characters, margins around the characters and sufficient background contrast to achieve the USSC sign design guideline of approximately 60 percent negative space (background), the total sign area would need to be approximately 278 square feet per side. At 585 square feet per side, the proposed sign is more than twice the size recommended by the USSC guidelines.

Based on the USSC legibility methodology, while increased visibility distance may improve awareness of the site, it does not appear that a 50-foot-tall 1,171 sf sign is necessary to comply with USSC Guidelines, and the following condition of approval has been added. A USSC legibility analysis of the appropriate size and height of the freestanding sign along Skyline Road was not provided.

Recommended Conditions of Approval

24.The applicant shall provide an analysis of the minimal sign height and size necessary for legibility of the freestanding sign along SR 36 and along Skyline Road using the methodology provided in the US Sign Council guidelines and reduce the height and size of the signs accordingly. Revised sign plans shall be subject to review and approval by City staff.

Approval of the Sign Permit is included in the draft Resolution approving Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, & Sign Permit (Attachment 4).

COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE:

On December 17, 2025, the City released a Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In addition to comments on the environmental impacts of the project which are addressed in the Final EIR, comments regarding the merit of the project were shared with the City during that process. Several comments were received supporting the project noting the benefits of a safe location for trucks to stop, new job opportunities, and benefits to the local economy.

Additionally, community members expressed concern about the potential for increased criminal activity and drug use on the site, impacts on other/similar local businesses, the scale and location of the project, impacts on the quality of life and character of the area and livestock behavior, and access to the rail trail.

A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Intermountain News and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on April 3, 2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared for the proposed Love’s Travel Stop project. The Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with

20 annexation of the project site into the City, pre-zoning of the property, development of the travel stop facility, and long-term operation of the use.

Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR along with an Initial Study were published on January 31, 2025. The Initial Study identified that the project could have potentially significant impacts on Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The NOP initiated a 30-day public comment period that ran from February 3, 2025, through March 5, 2025. A total of five public comments were received along with letters from the Native American Heritage Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Transportation, and Lassen County.

Following publication of the NOP, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and published on December 17, 2025 and initiated a 45-day public and agency review period that ran through January 31, 2026. The Draft EIR analyzes project-level and cumulative impacts across all environmental issue areas identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

The document identifies feasible mitigation measures to reduce environmental effects and evaluates alternatives capable of reducing significant impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 to ensure implementation of adopted mitigation measures.

The DEIR concluded that all impacts from the project would be less than significant or would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures. Specifically, the DEIR found that the project would have less than significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems.

The DEIR found impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources would be potentially significant but through the implementation of established mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the DEIR concluded that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

The City received comments from 20 members of the public and from three State agencies: Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division. Upon completing review of the public and agency comments, Ascent prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report which included a response to comments. As required, the FEIR, including responses to comments received from State Agencies, was made available at least ten-days prior to considering project approvals. Certification of the EIR is required prior to project approvals. The Draft and Final EIR can be found on the City’s website at https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2025011078/3.

The EIR establishes ten mitigation measures (MM 3.3-2a, MM 3.3-2b, MM 3.3-2c, MM

3.3-3, MM 3.3-4, MM 3.4-1a, MM 3.4-1b, MM 3.6-1, MM 3.10-1a, and MM 3.10-1b) that

21 reduce the project’s impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geologic (paleontological) resources, and tribal cultural resources and which are included in the Project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) which is included as Exhibit B of Attachment 4.

Recommended Condition of Approval

25.The project applicant/operator and property owner shall implement all mitigation measures in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program certified as part of the environmental impact report certified by the City on April 15, 2026.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Susanville Travel Stop Project EIR.

2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map changing the land use designation of the subject property from Light Industrial/Business Park to General Commercial Shopping Center.

3. Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Sign Permit, subject to conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Project plans
Attachment 2: Resolution Certifying the Susanville Travel Stop Project Environmental Impact Report
Attachment 3: Resolution Recommending that City Council Amend the General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment 4 Resolution approving Architectural & Site Plan Review, Use Permit, & Sign Permit
Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B – Findings of Fact
Exhibit C – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Attachment 5: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Attachment 6: Zoning Code Compliance Analysis
Attachment 7: Architecture & Site Plan Review Analysis

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6533

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE INITIATING THE ANNEXATION OF APN 107-280-017 AND ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ALONG STATE ROUTE 36 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE OPPOSITE

PROPERTY LINE ACROSS THE HIGHWAY INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF SUSANVILLE AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION

OF THE PARCEL TO THE LASSEN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, on October 14, 2024 the City of Susanville received applications from Lane Engineers on behalf of Sierra Pacific Industries requesting annexation to the City of Susanville of a 79.6 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of State Highway 36 and Skyline Road (APN: 107-280-017) (herein “Project Site”), along with a General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Architectural and Site Plan Review, Use Permit, and Sign Permit applications to develop a travel stop consisting of a convenience store and two fast food restaurants in a 13,005 square foot building, truck and automobile fueling station, and overnight RV parking area and associated amenities (herein “Project”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the “Act”), commencing with California Government Code section 56000, for the annexation of the Project Site and adjacent public right of way; and
WHEREAS, the Lassen Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is the lead agency responsible for approving or denying requests for annexation; and

WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the City of Susanville’s Sphere of Influence which delineates the City’s probable ultimate physical boundary and service area, as approved by Lassen LARFO; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is adjacent to the existing City boundary and will not result in the creation of any non-contiguous parcels in the unincorporated area of Lassen County; and WHEREAS, General Plan Policy LUD 6.1 says that the City shall work with Lassen County, Susanville Consolidated Sanitary District (SCSD) and Lassen Municipal Utilities District (LMUD) to seek to annex lands within its sphere of influence that are contiguous to its city limits; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Policy LUD-6.3 says that the City shall encourage annexation of areas to the city prior to their development; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that the proposed project, located on the approximately

79.6 acre-Project Site (APN 107-280-017), constitutes a discretionary action, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and issued a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report on February 3, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, the Susanville Sanitary District provided a statement of intent to own and operate the sewer main line serving the Love’s Travel Stop and requested to submit a joint annexation application to Lassen LAFCO; and

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently located within the unincorporated territory of Lassen County, and the Project analyzed in the EIR specifically includes annexation of said parcel(s) into the City of Susanville, along with associated jurisdictional boundary changes; and WHEREAS, the Project site will be accessible from State Route 36, and it is in the public interest to include the Project frontage from the property line to the center line of the highway along the length of the project frontage in the annexation; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45-day public review period on December 17, 2025, and notification was provided to Lassen LAFCO as a Responsible Agency; and
WHEREAS, the City received no formal comments from LAFCO during the DEIR public review period regarding the scope of the environmental analysis or the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, along with the Notice of Public Hearing expressing the City’s intent to certify the EIR and approve the Project, including annexation, was transmitted to Lassen LAFCO on April 6, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project was certified by the Susanville Planning Commission on April 15, 2026, through adoption of PC Resolution 26-1200 and Findings of Fact were made pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Intermountain News on April 3, 2026, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter as presented at the April 15, 2026, public meeting of the City Council, including the supporting reports by City Staff.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Susanville, as follows:

1. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this resolution are true and correct and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this resolution; and

2. The City Council finds that annexation of the Project Site is consistent with the City of Susanville growth and annexation policies as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 09-4509 in that it:
a. aligns with the City’s growth goals by annexing land within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI);
b. is contiguous with city limits;
c. can be efficiently served by municipal services including roads, public sewer, and public water;
d. allows the City to control the type, quality and location of development that is currently outside the city limits, but within the SOI;
e. has a positive net effect on the City’s fiscal stability; and

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
f. preserves the natural resources associated with the Susan River by maintaining a buffer in excess of 300 feet; and

3. The City Council hereby determines that the potential environmental effects from the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed in the Susanville Travel Stop Project Final EIR (SCH #2025011078) certified by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2026. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council makes general findings and findings regarding each significant adverse environmental effect of the Project as set forth in Exhibit B (Findings of Fact), attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Additionally, consistent with Section 21081(a)(3) the City Council makes findings with respect to alternatives studies in the EIR as set forth in Exhibit A. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared as set forth in the Planning Commission Project Entitlements Approval Resolution, and incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all feasible mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and

4. The City Council hereby consents to annexation of the Site and adjacent public right of way on State Route 36; and

5. The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Lassen County to initiate proceedings for the annexation of the Site as shown in Exhibit A and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 107-280-017 along with the adjacent public right of way in the manner provided by the Act; and

6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:_____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

247 190 38

FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Susanville Travel Stop Project
Prepared for:

City of Susanville
April 2026

FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Susanville Travel Stop Project
Prepared for:

City of Susanville
66 N. Lassen Street
Susanville, CA 96130
Contact:

Mr. Dan Newton
City Manager
66 North Lassen Street
Susanville, CA 96130
Office: (530) 252-5106
Fax: (530) 252-5109
Prepared by:

Ascent
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Eric Ruby
Project Director
619.489.5676
April 2026
20240127.03

Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................................2-3

2.1 Project Narrative .............................................................................................................................................................2-3

2.2 Project Objectives ...............................................................................................................................................................2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ..........................................................................................................................................3

3.1 Notice of Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................3

3.2 Draft Environmental Impact Report..............................................................................................................................3

3.3 Final Environmental Impact Report...............................................................................................................................4

3.4 Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.........................................................................................4 4 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS ...............................................................................................................................................................5 5 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR NO IMPACTS ............................................................................................................6 6 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL .....................................................................................................................................................7

6.1 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................7

6.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................................15

6.3 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................................................17

6.4 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................................19 7 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ...................................................................................................................................................................................20 8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................................20

8.1 Legal Principles Governing the Analysis and Ultimate Selection or Rejection of Alternatives ................20

8.2 Alternatives considered in the EIR ...............................................................................................................................21

Susanville Travel Stop Project
ii Findings and Facts in Support of Findings

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CSA California Endangered Species Act
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CWA Clean Water Act
Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LED Light Emitting Diode
LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOP Notice of Preparation
PRC Public Resources Code
RV Recreational Vehicle
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCH State Clearinghouse
SF Square Foot
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SR State Route
STAA Surface Transportation Assistance Act
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USSC United States Sign Council
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” This statutory command is known as the “substantive mandate” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (PRC, Section 21000 et seq.). (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134 (Mountain Lion Foundation).) Public Resource Code section 21002 also states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” This substantive mandate of CEQA is effectuated through the requirements that (i) Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) include mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects, and (ii) at the time of project approval, agency decisionmakers adopt what are commonly called “CEQA Findings,” which describe the disposition of all significant effects identified in EIRs. Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a) is the statutory provision that requires such findings. The parallel section in the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) is section 15091.1
The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, all comments received on the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, and Revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Susanville Travel Stop Project (project) satisfies the first of these two requirements.

Through the CEQA Findings set forth below, the City Council of the City of Susanville (City) satisfies the second requirement. “[T]he purpose of the statutory requirement for findings is to ensure that the decision making agency actually considers alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886, 896.) “The requirement ensures there is evidence of the public agency’s actual consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures, and reveals to citizens the analytical process by which the public agency arrived at its decision.” (Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal. 4th at p. 134.) “Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that, notwithstanding a project’s impact on the environment, the agency’s approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures.” (Ibid.)
Section 15091 of the Guidelines provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.  Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.2
CEQA does not define the terms “avoid” or “substantially lessen” as used in section 15091. The City therefore gleans the meaning of these terms from the other context in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than “substantially lessen.” The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate “mitigating'' with “substantially lessening.” Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which, as noted above, include the policy that “public agencies 1 The Guidelines are found in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. 2 See also Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.

Project Description Ascent
Susanville Travel Stop Project
1-2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Pub. Resources Code section 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-than-significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521 (Laurel Hills), in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question to less than significant.

Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid(ed) or substantially lessen(ed),” these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-than-significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency decision-maker, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency decision-maker found that the project's “benefits” outweigh its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects” and on that basis consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable'' under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15043(d). See also Pub.

Resources Code section 21080(b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “(t)he wisdom of approving [any] development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore, balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.). However, the project does not include significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Pursuant to these requirements, the City Council, as the decision-making body for the City, hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the Project, as more fully described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) dated April 2026 (SCH No. 2025011078).

Ascent Project Description
Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 1-3
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT NARRATIVE
The proposed project includes annexation of a 79.6 acre parcel and development of a travel stop, which would provide professional truck drivers and motorists with 24-hour access to purchase gasoline, diesel, propane, electronics, snacks, travel items, and two fast-food restaurants, one with drive-thru. A dog park, RV dump station, bioretention basins, truck, RV and automobile parking areas and landscaping/lighting are also proposed, along with a 10-space overnight RV park. Finish grading for the entire project site would be balanced onsite. The complete project site is shown in Figure 2-2. The site plan is shown on Figure 2-3 and project elevations and floor plans are shown on Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 respectively. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the proposed uses.

Project characteristics and design features are listed below and summarized in the following sections:
 a 12-position passenger vehicle fueling station;
 a 4-position truck fueling station;
 a combined 13,005-square foot (SF) convenience
store and two fast-food options, approximately 25 ft
in height; 7,943 SF would be convenience store, the
smaller of the two fast food options would be 1,588
SF with 3,474 SF for the fast-food restaurant with
drive-thru;
 a 5,000 SF dog park;
 a truck scale;
 an RV dump station;
 a 1,000-gallon propane tank;
 a 30,000-gallon below ground gasoline storage tank,
including fuel delivery parking;
 four 12,000-gallon above-ground diesel storage tanks
for truck fueling, including fuel delivery parking;
 a 20,000 two-compartment below ground split tank
with 12,000 gallons of diesel for automobiles and
8,000 of premium unleaded for automobiles;
 a 20,000-gallon below ground diesel exhaust fluid
storage tank;
 70 standard truck parking spaces (all available for
overnight parking), 53 automobile parking spaces, five
RV parking spaces, three electric vehicle (EV) charging station spaces, three accessible parking spaces and 10
overnight RV parking spaces with full hookups (power,
water, and sewer);
 on site lighting, consisting of high-mast LED fixtures and LED canopy lighting - 43’ in truck areas and 33’ in auto areas;
 high-rise sign (75 ft in height), and other directional signage;
 bicycle rack and bicycle parking (8 short term spaces and 2 long term spaces);
 trash compactor, recycling and grease collection bins;  landscaping, hardscaping, pavement, and fencing;
 one 200,000-gallon fire water supply storage tank and associated booster pump;
 four stormwater bioretention basins between - 6,272
SF and 86,247 SF;
 rooftop solar panels and other sustainability features; and
 utility extensions for gas, water and sewer.

Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 1
Table 2-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Building/Use Square Feet
Convenience Store 7,943
Fast-Food Counter 1,588
Fast-Food Restaurant (w/drive-through) 3,474
Dog Park 5,000
Landscaping area 142,650
Extension of Skyline Road (additional paved area) 77,805 Parking Number of Spaces
EV Parking/Charging 3
Total Auto Parking (including 4 Accessible spaces) 53
RV Parking 5
Overnight RV Parking 10
Standard Truck Parking 70
Total 141
Source: Lane Engineers, Inc. 2024; adapted by Ascent 2024.

The project would include a 7,943-SF convenience store, one 1,588-SF fast-food option and another 3,474-SF fastfood restaurant with an external drive-through window. The convenience store and fast-food restaurants would occupy the same building, which would be located between the automobile and truck fueling stations and would be in the central portion of the project site. The area north and east of the building would include automobile parking, with overnight RV parking to the very north; and the western and southwestern portions of the project site would consist of parking spaces for trucks. The auto fueling bays and diesel fueling bays would be accessible by separate entry points and physically separated by the building housing the fast-food restaurant and convenience store.

Underground gasoline storage tanks would be in the northwest corner of the project site and would consist of a 30,000-gallon tank for unleaded fuel, a 20,000-gallon split tank with 12,000 gallons of diesel for automobiles and 8,000 of premium unleaded for automobiles, and a 20,000-gallon diesel exhaust fluid tank for diesel exhaust fluid.

Above-ground diesel storage tanks would be located in the same portion of the site and consist of four 12,000-gallon tanks to hold diesel.

Truck and automobile fueling bays would be covered by a canopy and would have a hydrologically isolated drainage system that discharges to an oil/water separator. The four above-ground storage tanks would include a concrete containment curb that would catch and retain fuel in the event of a fuel spill.

The proposed four stormwater bioretention basins would collect surface runoff from the project site (see Figure 2-3).

Bioretention systems are designed to function in a manner similar to the physical, chemical, and biological processes in the natural environment. These systems capture runoff, promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, recharge groundwater, and remove nutrients, sediment, and heavy metals carried in stormwater.

Landscaping would cover approximately 142,650 SF (23 percent) of the 14.15-acre project site. Landscaping would include native plants, xeriscaping, or other drought resistant plants, consistent with the Landscaping Regulations included in Chapter 17.96.040 of the City of Susanville Code of Ordinances. The landscape plan is shown in Figure 2-6.

The project would provide a total of 141 parking spaces, split into 70 standard truck parking spaces, 53 automobile parking spaces, five RV parking spaces, three EV charging station spaces, and 10 overnight RV parking spaces; four of the automobile spaces would be accessible per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Overnight truck parking would be available in all truck spaces; however, idling of trucks would be limited to no more than five minutes, consistent with California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
With regard to the high-rise sign, due to the nature of the development (a truck stop serving large semi-trucks), it is imperative that adequate visibility is achieved at a safe distance which allows truck drivers to plan their maneuver and exit SR 36 to turn into the site. Information contained in United States Sign Council (USSC) guidance notes that at 50 miles per hour, the rate at which the viewing distance decreases is 88 feet per second (USSC Foundation 2015).

Because of this rapidly decreasing window of viewing opportunity, roadside sign design, and its height, is critical to traffic safety. Driving northbound on SR 36 from Johnstonville, the speed limit is 55 mph until approximately 500 ft from the SR 36/Skyline Road intersection and is 50 mph southbound on SR 36 from Susanville, thus at those speeds it is critical the sign is of sufficient height to allow safe vehicle maneuvering. As such, the project applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the 75 ft sign height.

In terms of sustainability features, the project’s building energy-efficient features would include, but would not be limited to, water-efficient landscape design, high-efficiency plumbing fixtures and weather-based controller and drip irrigation systems to promote a reduction of indoor and outdoor water use. The project would include solar panels which would be installed in accordance with the California Energy Code requirements and would produce an estimated 51,000 kWh/year, along with the three EV charging spaces mentioned previously, which would be provided in accordance with the CALGreen code. The project would provide bicycle facilities that would meet or exceed the respective CALGreen code.

2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of the objectives and underlying purpose of the project shall be disclosed in the Draft EIR. The underlying purpose of the project is to develop a regional travel stop and related commercial land uses on Regional Commercial (C-R)-designated land within unincorporated Lassen County on land that will be annexed into the City of Susanville via an annexation application processed by the Lassen County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This underlying purpose, in turn, gives rise to the following project objectives:
 Create a high-quality travel stop commercial development along SR 36, a designated Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) route.3
 Develop a property of sufficient size to create a regional travel stop that would accommodate a truck and auto fuel dispensing area, convenience store, two fast-food restaurants, dog park, truck parking and overnight RV parking.  Construct a travel stop facility near a major highway to minimize truck and automobile movements, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and traffic noise on local streets.  Assist the City of Susanville with meeting its economic development goals, as set forth in its General Plan.  Maximize tax revenue to the City of Susanville.
 Provide employment opportunities for residents of the City of Susanville and surrounding areas.  Construct a facility that can be served by municipal water and sewer to support planned operations.  Include signage visible to oncoming truck and automobile drivers along State Route 36 and Skyline Road at sufficient distances to allow the drivers to safely make their way to points of access to the project site.  Provide a travel stop facility of sufficient size to capture overflow overnight truck parking.

3 STAA routes are those that trucks that are longer than ‘CA legal’ are allowed to travel on.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 3
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

3.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION
On February 3, 2025, in accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project to responsible agencies, interested parties, and organizations, as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for was being prepared for the project and to solicit input on the scope and content of the environmental document.

The City received nine comment letters in response to the NOP. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Key concerns and issues that were expressed during the scoping process included the following:
 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The letter provides a summary of tribal consultation requirements pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 and NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
 Private citizen. This letter supports the project and considers the positive safety and economic impact.  Private citizen. This letter supports the project and considers the positive economic impact.  Private citizen. This letter supports the project and recommends Electric Charging Stations be considered in the project design.
 Private citizen. This letter supports the project and considers the positive job opportunities.  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The letter from CDFW offers recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, minimizing and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on biological resources.  Private citizen. This letter recommends consideration of water quality and land classification.  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The letter mentions that a flood study will not be necessary upon further analysis of the floodplain. Additionally, should the City qualify for the Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, the City would not need to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).  County of Lassen. The letter mentions that the proposed use is not allowed by right or use permit in the subject zoning district, and would therefore require a rezone, General Plan amendment, and a use permit.

Furthermore, due to the fact the project site is in a scenic highway corridor, aesthetics should be discussed in the EIR, despite that it was previously scoped out in the Initial Study.

These issues were addressed in the Draft EIR and any impacts related to these issues are either identified as less than significant, or less than significant after mitigation.

3.2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
On December 17, 2025, the City released the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review and comment period. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (https://www.cityofsusanville.gov/326/Susanville-Travel-Stop-Draft-EIR) and its facebook.com page (https://www.facebook.com/cityofsusanville/posts/notice-of-availability-for-a-draft-environmental-impact-report-forthe-susanvill/1302880775212767); and was made available for review at the following location:
- City of Susanville, City Hall, 66 N Lassen Street, Susanville, CA 96130

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
4 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
A notice of availability of the Draft EIR was published in the Intermountain newspaper on December 17 and 24, 2025 and distributed by the City via email to the Lassen County LAFCO, Lassen County, and those commenters/interested parties who commented on the NOP.

3.3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City released the Final EIR on April 3, 2026. The Final EIR includes comments received related to the Draft EIR, responses to environmental issues raised in the comments, revisions to the text of the Draft EIR as necessary for clarification, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

3.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
Prior to certifying the Final EIR, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the project and Final EIR. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council, should it choose to do so, will adopt resolutions (1) certifying of the Final EIR as adequate and complete and (2) approving the project. To support such approval, the City Council will adopt the following findings of fact (the “Findings”). These Findings contain the City's written analysis and conclusions regarding the project's environmental effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the project. These Findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Final EIR, as described in Section 4 below.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 5
4 RECORD OF PROCEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the project include the following documents:
 The NOP dated February 3, 2025, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project, including the Notices of Completion and Availability providing notice that the Draft EIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment;
 All comments submitted during the comment period on the NOP;  The Draft EIR for the project, including the technical appendices;  All comments submitted during the comment period on the Draft EIR;  All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
 The Final EIR for the project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and appendices;
 All documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the City’s files on the project;  All internal City communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the project or to compliance with CEQA;
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project;  All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
 All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents in the City’s possession relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, and responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s actions on project;  All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, through the close of the public hearing on April 15, 2026;  Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the project;
 Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
 Portions of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code relevant to the project;  Provisions of the City’s Zoning Code cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the City;  Any and all resolutions adopted by the City regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
 Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and  Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e) and any other applicable law.

The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public normal business hours at the City of Susanville, located at City Hall, 66 N Lassen Street. Susanville, CA 96130. The custodian of these documents is City Manager, Dan Newton.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
6 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
5 FINDINGS REGARDING INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND

JUDGMENT
As required by CEQA, the Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR) was prepared under contract with the City (PRC, Section 21082.1; Guidelines Section 15084) and City staff and consultants were directly involved in the review and preparation of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and these CEQA Findings of Fact. City staff and consultants have reviewed and commented on administrative drafts prior to publication and circulation, and the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and these CEQA Findings of Fact represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 7
6 FINDINGS REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE EIR AND

RECIRCULATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the lead agency gives public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. “Information” may include project changes, changes to the environmental setting, or additional data or other information. The Guidelines do not consider new information to be significant unless the lead agency changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate the impact that the agency or project proponent has declined to implement.

Section 15088.5 states “significant new information” requiring recirculation may include:
(1) A new significant environmental impact that had not previously been disclosed in the Draft EIR would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure; (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that had already been identified unless mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the proponents will not adopt it; or (4) The Draft EIR was so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Recirculation is not required if new information added to the EIR only clarifies or makes minor modifications to an otherwise adequate EIR.

In response to comments from the public and other public agencies on the Draft EIR, the City has incorporated minor changes into the Final EIR, which are described in Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR” of the Final EIR. Minor changes are incorporated in the following chapters and appendices: Chapter 1, “Executive Summary”, Chapter 3, “Environmental Impact Analysis”, and Appendix I, “Transportation Impact Analysis.” Changes to Chapter 1, “Executive Summary”, include revisions to Table ES-1, “Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures” to reflect revisions to Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, and 3.3-3, made in response to comments on the Draft EIR.

Changes to Chapter 3, “Environmental Impact Analysis”, include revisions to Section 3.3, “Biological Resources”, to reflect revisions to Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, and 3.3-3, made in response to comments on the Draft EIR.

Changes to Appendix I, “Transportation Impact Analysis”, include revisions to the description of Caltrans’ preference for Alternative 2 regarding geometric/signal phasing on page 36, the addition of the Final Technical Paper: Love’s Trip Generation and Travel Characteristics Study, (GHD 2018) within Appendix B to Appendix I, revisions to the labeling of intersections on page 47, and to include information on traffic counts within Appendix A to Appendix I, all in response to comments on the Draft EIR.

Findings: The City Council finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required: (1) because the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]); and (2) because no “substantial adverse” impact would result from any of the revisions to the portions of the Draft EIR that were not recirculated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[e]). No new significant environmental impacts were identified and disclosed in the Final EIR that were not identified and disclosed in the Draft EIR. There was no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact as reported in the Draft EIR.

No project alternative or mitigation measure that would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project was deleted from the Final EIR or rejected. Changes to mitigation measures were to provide specificity regarding regulatory requirements and will be adopted by Project proponents. Thus, recirculation is not necessary as the changes do not constitute significant new information under CEQA.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
8 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
7 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OR NO IMPACTS
The Final EIR (April 3, 2026) determined that the project would result in less-than-significant impacts or no impacts to the following specific areas:
 Aesthetics (Impacts 3.1-1 and 3.1-2)
 Air Quality (Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3)
 Biological Resources (Impacts 3.3-1)
 Energy (Impact 3.5-1)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (Impact 3.7-1)  Noise and Vibration (Impacts 3.8-1, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4)  Transportation (Impacts 3.9-1 and 3.9-2)
 Utilities and Service Systems (Impacts 3.10-1)

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 9
8 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Final EIR (April 3, 2026) identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the specific areas of archaeological, and tribal cultural resources; biological resources; and paleontological resources. The City Council finds that the significant or potentially significant impacts from the project can be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through mitigation.

The City’s analyses with respect to the project's significant impacts and mitigation measures are set forth in detail in the Final EIR. Through these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analyses, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR, except as may be specifically described in these Findings. The City further adopts the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and, as set forth in the Findings below, incorporates them into the Project.

8.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.3-2: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Special-Status Wildlife Species, Native Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds
Eleven special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur on or adjacent to the project site in areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by project activities based on desktop review. Project activities (i.e., vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging, heavy equipment use) could result in direct loss of special-status wildlife species, loss of or disturbance to nests or dens, or disturbance leading to abandonment of active nests or dens and mortality of dependent young. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Findings
As stated in the Biological Technical Report, initially, 11 special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur on or adjacent to the project site in areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by project activities: western bumble bee, Lahontan mountain sucker, northwestern pond turtle, bald eagle, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, yellow warbler, bank swallow, and pallid bat (see Table 3.3-3 of the Draft EIR). Bank swallow, a special-status bird species listed as threatened under CESA is also known nest on the near vertical banks of the Susan River within the study area. In addition to special-status birds, native birds and raptors protected by California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also nest on or near the project site.

Although no project activities are planned in the Susan River corridor, noise, vibration, and visual stimuli created by project activities in the vicinity of bank swallow or tricolored blackbird nesting colonies could agitate parent birds, interrupting essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or brooding, resulting in loss of reproduction or nest failure, or could ultimately cause them to abandon their nests altogether resulting in death of chicks that have already hatched. Additionally, long-term operation of the travel stop could cause bank swallows and tricolored blackbirds to permanently abandon active nest sites near the project site, if any, which could ultimately lead to take. However, as identified in the 2025 Special-Status Bird Surveys Memo (contained within the Biological Technical Report, Appendix D of the Draft EIR), no bank swallows or tricolored blackbirds were observed within the project boundaries during the 2025 nesting bird surveys and these species are not expected to occur in the study area. As a result, the project is not expected to have impacts on these three species. Swainson’s hawks may forage on the project site; however, the project site does not contain trees suitable for nesting Swainson’s hawks, and no Swainson’s hawk nests were observed in the 0.5-milestudy area buffer during the 2025 nesting bird surveys.

In addition to special-status birds, native birds and raptors protected by California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also nest on or near the project site. Project activities (i.e., vegetation clearing, ground disturbance,

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
10 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
staging, heavy equipment use) may result in direct loss of special-status wildlife species, loss of or disturbance to nests or dens, or disturbance leading to abandonment of active nests or dens and mortality of dependent young.

No project activities are proposed within the Susan River corridor; as a result, the project is not expected to have impacts on Lahontan mountain sucker. Project activities do not include removal of any trees, structures, or any other potential roosting sites for bats; as a result, this project is not expected to have any impacts on pallid bat.

Based on the above discussion, project activities have potential to have a substantial adverse effect on special-status wildlife species, native raptors, and other native nesting birds. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts on biological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: Conduct Focused Surveys for Other Special-Status Birds, Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Buffers
 To minimize the potential for loss of special-status bird species, raptors, and other native birds, project activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) should be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist). If project activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation would be required.  Within 14 7 days before the onset of any project activities to be implemented during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with the birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys will conduct focused surveys for special-status birds, other nesting raptors, and other native bird nests. Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas within 0.25 miles of the project site for bald eagles, golden eagles, and Swainson’s hawks, within 500 feet of the project site for other raptor species and special-status birds, and within 50 feet of the project site for nonraptor common native bird nests.  If no active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a memo documenting the survey methods and results to the applicant and the City of Susanville, and no further mitigation would be required.  If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers, in consultation with CDFW, around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. Buffers typically would be 0.25 miles for bald eagle and golden eagle, and 500 feet for other raptors and special-status birds (e.g., bank swallow). Buffer size for non-raptor common bird species would be determined by a qualified biologist. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size would include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project activities. Generally, buffer size for common bird nests would be at least 20 feet. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for individuals of a species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act or that is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act would require consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS, depending on the species’ legal status. Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project activities would be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.  Removal of bald eagle and golden eagle nests is prohibited regardless of the occupancy status under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. If bald eagle or golden eagle nests are found during focused surveys, then the nest would not be removed.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 11
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Conduct Focused Protocol Level Western Bumble Bee Survey and Establish Protective Buffers
 Within 14 days before commencement of project activities, a qualified wildlife biologist with familiarity with western bumble bee and experience using survey methods for the species shall conduct focused surveys of habitat suitable for the species within the project site.  A qualified biologist familiar with bumble bees of California and experienced using survey methods for bumble bees shall conduct a habitat assessment and focused survey (if the habitat assessment indicates that a survey is necessary) for western bumble bee following the methods in Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) before the start of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be performed when western bumble bee is most likely to be identified, typically from April through September (i.e., the colony active period) when floral resources and ideal weather conditions are present.
▪ Non-Invasive Surveys: non-invasive focused surveys would include the use of cameras to photograph bumble bees. Photographs would be reviewed and verified by a qualified individual to identify the bumble bees to species. Permits are not required for non-invasive surveys. ▪ Non-Lethal Capture Surveys: surveys that would include capturing bumble bees for identification purposes and subsequently releasing the bees, would require a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from CDFW. No capture surveys will be conducted before the surveyor obtains an MOU. Prior to conducting non-lethal capture surveys, UC Davis will provide the surveyor’s qualifications and survey methodology to CDFW for review and approval.
 For any non-lethal capture surveys, the project applicant will submit a survey report to CDFW within 1 month of survey completion and will notify CDFW within 24 hours if western bumble bees are detected.  If no western bumble bee is found, western bumble bees are detected during the focused survey, appropriate avoidance measures will be implemented. the qualified biologist shall submit a memo documenting the survey methods and results to the applicant and the City of Susanville, and no further mitigation will be required.

Avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Protective buffers will be implemented around active nesting colonies until these sites are no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, will determine the appropriate buffer size to protect nesting colonies; however, buffers will typically be at least 50 feet.
 If impacts on western bumble bee cannot be avoided, compliance with CESA and consultation with CDFW is required and may involve acquiring an incidental take permit (ITP) from CDFW. The project applicant will implement all avoidance measures included in the ITP.
 If western bumble bee is found, impacts to western bumble bee shall be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around occupied nests and floral resources within 100 meters of nests during the breeding/flight season of April-August.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2c: Conduct Focused Western Pond Turtle Survey and Establish Protective Buffers  Within 14 days before commencement of project activities, a qualified wildlife biologist familiar with western pond turtle shall conduct focused surveys for western pond turtle within upland nesting habitat areas suitable for the species.
 If western pond turtles are not found, the qualified biologist shall submit a memo summarizing the results of the survey to the applicant and the City of Susanville, and no further mitigation will be required.  If a western pond turtle is found, flagging areas for avoidance, relocation of individual animals by a qualified wildlife biologist with a valid CDFW scientific collecting permit, and/or other measures recommended by a qualified biologist as necessary to avoid injury to or mortality of western pond turtles shall be required.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
12 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
 If a western pond turtle nest is found, impacts to the nest would be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around all active nests, the size of which shall be determined by the qualified biologist. No project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging, heavy equipment use) may occur within the exclusion zone until nesting activities are complete or the nest is abandoned, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall monitor each nest once per week to track the status of the nest and to determine when it is no longer occupied. When it is no longer occupied, project activities within the exclusion zone may occur.

Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2c, impacts on biological resources would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-2c would identify procedures for avoiding impacts on special-status wildlife, native raptors, and other native nesting birds. Specifically, these measures require the applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused surveys for special-status wildlife species, raptors, and other native birds within a specified distance from the project site prior to project construction and establish appropriate buffers or exclusion zones around any nests, dens, or floral/nectar sources, as needed. If special-status wildlife species cannot be avoided, the applicant would be required to implement other mitigation strategies, subject to review and approval by the City of Susanville and in consultation with CDFW or USFWS, as needed or applicable for species entitled to protection under the ESA or CESA. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the MMRP.

Impact 3.3-3: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities
Riparian habitat protected under Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code is present in the study area. Ashy ryegrass - Creeping wildrye turfs (Leymus cinereus - Leymus triticoides) is a sensitive natural community that occurs within the study area. Project activities (i.e., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) could result in direct loss of this sensitive natural community. Installation of off-site utilities over or under the Susan River and distributary streams could result in loss or alteration of riparian habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Findings
Montane riparian habitat is present in the study area along the Susan River, as depicted in Figure 3.3-2 of the Draft EIR, and along a distributary stream at the crossing of Skyline Road.

As identified in the Section 2.3.3 of the Draft EIR, “Off-site Improvements,” off-site utilities would cross the Susan River along SR 36 and Skyline Road. The current intention is for utilities to be hung on the bridge, with Lassen County and Caltrans permission. As no project construction is proposed within the Susan River corridor, a CWA Section 404 permit from USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Lahontan RWQCB would not be required for these activities. However, due to potential construction of off-site utilities on the banks of the Susan River and a distributary stream, there is the possibility for removal of riparian vegetation, modification of stream banks, or incidental deposition of materials into stream channels during construction, including during installation of bore locations if it is necessary to bore under the river. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW prior to beginning any activity that may do one or more of the following:
 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or  substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or  deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

As part of any potential LSAA, it is likely that CDFW would request the inclusion of an inadvertent release contingency plan which would outline the steps to be taken in the event of an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials,

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 13
like oil or chemicals, into the environment, with the primary focus on avoiding environmental damage and protecting wildlife. Therefore, should construction occur on the banks of the Susan River or the distributary stream, adherence to the Fish and Game Code regulatory requirement for an LSAA, which includes notification to CDFW through the Environmental Permit Information Management System, provision of supplemental information such as plans, diagrams, maps, photos, studies and payment of LSAA notification fees, inclusion of an inadvertent release contingency plan and subsequent approval by CDFW prior to construction would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would be undertaken in a manner that is protective of the environment. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats.

The project site is disturbed and infested with invasive plant species such as perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) as well as Medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae) to a lesser extent.

However, Ashy ryegrass - Creeping wildrye turfs (Leymus cinereus - Leymus triticoides) is a sensitive natural community identified in the study area within the mapped CWHR perennial grassland habitat. This vegetation alliance has a State rarity ranking of S3 (Vulnerable: moderate risk of extinction, restricted range, few populations) and is therefore considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA. Project activities (i.e., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) could result in direct loss of this sensitive natural community. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts on biological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Delineate Sensitive Natural Communities, Implement Avoidance Buffers, and If Needed, Compensate for Unavoidable Losses
 Prior to implementation of project activities on the banks of the Susan River or the distributary stream, a qualified biologist shall demarcate the extent of riparian habitat present on the banks and establish a no-disturbance buffer outside the dripline of the riparian vegetation using flagging or high-visibility construction fencing and identifying boundaries clearly in the construction drawings and contractor work plans. No vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities will occur within this buffer.  If riparian habitat cannot be avoided (e.g., if riparian vegetation must be removed or trimmed) or if drilling for jack and bore is required within the riparian corridor, the riparian habitat will be restored to pre-project conditions following completion of construction activities that affect riparian habitat. If riparian vegetation must be removed during off-site utility construction and cannot be restored at the same location, the applicant will restore degraded riparian habitat at another location within the study area (the 79.6-acre parcel) at a 2 to 1 ratio (2 acres restored for every acre lost as a result of project activities).  Before commencing any activity, including directional drilling, that may divert the natural flow or otherwise alter the Susan River or other stream resources, including riparian habitat on, or with roots reaching to, the bank of the Susan River, the applicant shall notify CDFW through issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification (notification). If CDFW determines, based on the notification, that project activities trigger the need for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent shall obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The applicant shall conduct project construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. These measures may include demarcation of the construction area, biological monitoring, preparation of an inadvertent release (frac-out) contingency plan for directional drilling, erosion control, environmental awareness training for construction crews, and compensatory measures (e.g., restoration, long-term habitat management.  Prior to implementation of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol-level surveys to delineate sensitive natural communities within the project site following survey methods from CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018 or most recent version).

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
14 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
 If ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs sensitive natural community is not found on the project site, access routes, or staging areas, the biologist shall document the findings in a memo to the applicant and the City of Susanville, and no further mitigation will be required.  If ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs sensitive natural community are found, the area occupied by this community shall be avoided completely, if avoidance can be achieved in light of project layout, design, engineering considerations, and utility alignments. This may include establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the vegetation community and demarcation of this buffer by a qualified biologist or botanist using flagging or high-visibility construction fencing. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist or botanist and shall be large enough to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the sensitive natural community.  If ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs are found on the project site and cannot be avoided, the applicant shall compensate for unavoidable losses to the sensitive natural community by:
▪ restoring degraded ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs within the study area (the 79.6 acre parcel) at a 1 to 1 ratio (1 acre restored for every acre lost as a result of project activities); ▪ restoring degraded ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turf outside of the study area at a 1 to 1 ratio (1 acre restored for every acre lost as a result of project activities); or ▪ preserving existing stands of ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs of equal or better value and equal acreage to those lost as a result of project activities through establishment of a conservation easement.

Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, impacts on biological resources would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 identifies procedures for delineating sensitive natural communities within the project site. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 further requires implementation of avoidance buffers for riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities or compensation for unavoidable losses, such that substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat and ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs would not occur. With regard to the compensatory option of preserving existing stands of ashy ryegrass - creeping wildrye turfs of equal or better value and equal acreage to those lost as a result of project activities through establishment of a conservation easement, the resulting net loss of acreage would be less than significant under the threshold, as the project would ensure there would not be a substantial effect on the community. Additionally, as the community only exists extending into the northwest corner of the project site, it is likely that should compensation be the only option for the loss of the community in that area, the community on the whole would not face a substantial impact as it would continue its existence in the larger 79.6-acre parcel and outside the immediate construction areas. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be enforced through the MMRP.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 15
Impact 3.3-4: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands A total of approximately 7.01 acres of aquatic resources that may be protected under state or federal regulations were documented in the Aquatic Resources study area, including the Susan River, a distributary stream, and several wetlands (e.g., palustrine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, and palustrine open water wetlands).

Project activities would result in substantial earth disturbance (trenching, grading and filling) but are in areas that are set back from the Susan River; therefore, sediment and debris are not expected to mobilize into the river. However, the proposed sewer line option would cross the Susan River by attaching pipe to the Main Street Bridge, or, if Caltrans deem it impermissible, by horizontal directional drilling under the river. Additionally, gas and water lines would be attached to the Skyline Road Bridge over the Susan River and another bridge over a distributary of the Susan River at Skyline Road. Off-site utilities, including improvements to SR 36 and extension of Skyline Road to the west of SR 36 to provide access to the project site, could result in fill of state or federally protected wetlands concentrated along the former railroad berm along the southern border of the project site and along the west side of SR 36. Section 404 of the CWA requires that a permit be obtained from USACE prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any “waters of the United States,” which includes wetlands and intermittent and perennial stream channels. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Findings
During the aquatic resources delineation conducted during April 2025, a total of approximately 7.01 acres of aquatic resources that may be protected under state or federal regulations were documented in the study area, including the Susan River, a distributary stream, and several wetlands (e.g., palustrine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, and palustrine open water wetlands). Of these, two palustrine emergent wetlands encompassing a total of approximately 0.48 acres are on the project site and the remaining 6.53 acres are within the potential off-site improvement areas. The complete methodology and results of the delineation are provided in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Appendix E of the Draft EIR). The Susan River is a jurisdictional water of the United States and water of the state. Project activities would result in substantial earth disturbance (trenching, grading and filling) in areas that are set back from the Susan River; therefore, sediment and debris are not expected to mobilize into the river. However, the proposed sewer line option would cross the Susan River by attaching pipe to the Main Street Bridge, or, if Caltrans deem it impermissible, by horizontal directional drilling under the river. Additionally, gas and water lines would be attached to the Skyline Road Bridge over the Susan River and another bridge over a distributary of the Susan River at Skyline Road. Indirect impacts to the Susan River and the distributary stream could result from construction of these off-site utilities. In general, indirect impacts can include inadvertent release of sediment or chemicals, altered hydrology, and increased erosion and sedimentation through soil disturbance and vegetation removal. Implementation of an Inadvertent Release (Frac-out) Contingency Plan for Horizontal Directional Drilling and best management practices to safeguard watercourses from excessive deposition of sediment or debris would avoid indirect impacts on water quality in the Susan River and other waters.

Construction of the project would result in the direct loss of the 0.48 acres of state-protected palustrine emergent wetlands on the project site. Other off-site utilities, including improvements to SR 36, extension of Skyline Road to the west of SR 36 to provide access to the project site, and potential gas and water lines could result in fill of state or federally protected wetlands concentrated along the former railroad berm along the southern border of the project site and along the west side of SR 36. Section 404 of the CWA requires that a permit be obtained from USACE prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any “waters of the United States,” which includes wetlands and intermittent and perennial stream channels. Section 404 permits generally require mitigation to offset losses of aquatic habitats which is intended to result in no net loss of wetland acres and functions. Waters of the state are defined as any surface or subsurface water and are protected by the Porter-Cologne Act. Fill of waters of the state, including state protected wetlands, also requires mitigation to offset losses of aquatic habitats. Additionally, work in the bed, channel, or bank of the river could require a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code.

Activities, including directional drilling, that have potential to divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change, or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of Susan River or distributary streams would require

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
16 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
notification of lake or streambed alteration be submitted to CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code. If the project design changes and direct impacts to Susan River are anticipated (such as jacking and boring the sewer line under the Susan River), the project proponent would need to acquire a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts on biological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Avoid Impacts to Waters of the United States and state, Including Wetlands  The project applicant shall design the project to avoid impacts to waters of the United States and state, including wetlands. If the project cannot be designed to avoid state or federally protected wetlands and other waters, the delineation report shall be submitted to USACE, and a jurisdictional determination shall be requested.  If state or federally protected wetlands or waters are determined to be present within the project site that can be avoided, a qualified aquatic resources biologist (hereafter referenced as a qualified biologist) shall establish a buffer around wetlands and mark the buffer boundary with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The buffer shall be a minimum width of 25 feet but may be larger if deemed necessary. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone shall be determined in coordination with the qualified biologist and shall depend on the type of wetland present (e.g., stream, fresh emergent wetland), the timing of project activities (e.g., wet or dry time of year), environmental conditions and terrain, and the project activity being implemented.

Project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) shall be prohibited within the established buffer. The qualified biologist shall periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided.  If it is determined that fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States would result from project implementation, authorization for such fill shall be secured from USACE and the RWQCB through CWA Sections 401 and 404 permitting processes. In association with the Section 404 permit (if applicable) and prior to the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Lahontan RWQCB shall be obtained. For impacts on waters of the state and state protected wetlands that are not also waters of the United States and are therefore not covered by the 401 Water Quality Certification, the applicant shall apply to the Lahontan RWQCB for Waste Discharge Requirements following the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). Any wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state that are filled by the project shall be replaced or restored on a no-net-loss basis in accordance with the applicable USACE and California Water Board mitigation standards in place at the time of construction.
 Before commencing any activity, including directional drilling, that may divert the natural flow or otherwise alter the Susan River or other stream resources, including riparian habitat on, or with roots reaching to, the bank of the Susan River, the applicant shall notify CDFW through issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification (notification). If CDFW determines, based on the notification, that project activities trigger the need for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent shall obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The applicant shall conduct project construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. These measures may include demarcation of the construction area, biological monitoring, preparation of an inadvertent release (frac-out) contingency plan for directional drilling, erosion control, environmental awareness training for construction crews, and compensatory measures (e.g., restoration, long-term habitat management.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 17
Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, impacts on biological resources would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 requires implementation of avoidance buffers and identifies additional procedures to follow to comply with State and federal regulations if it is determined that fill of waters of the United States or State would result from project implementation. While the project would result in the direct loss of the

0.48 acres of state-protected palustrine emergent wetlands on the project site, the majority of project activities would avoid wetland areas or would be prohibited within the wetland buffer. Additionally, as determined in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, there is a total of 4.37 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands in the aquatic resources study area. The loss of 0.48 acres therefore represents approximately a loss of 11 percent. The project would therefore not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, as the loss of 11 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands would not be considered substantial. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be enforced through the MMRP.

8.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources or any Historical Resources of an Archaeological Nature The study area has a moderate sensitivity for intact buried archaeological resources. Although no archaeological resources were identified within the area of potential ground disturbance, project-related grading and excavation could result in the unanticipated discovery or damage of yet undiscovered unique archaeological resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2[g] or historical resources of an archaeological nature as defined State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]. This impact would be potentially significant.

Findings
Minimal grading would be required to construct the project because the project site is relatively flat; however, ground disturbance would be required for excavation of building foundations, the high-rise sign, and bioretention ponds. As described in Section 3.4.2, “Environmental Setting,” the background research (including the NEIC record search results and literature review) and pedestrian field survey failed to identify the presence of archaeological resources, including those that could be considered important examples from major periods of California history or prehistory, within the area of potential ground disturbance. However, the analysis of the geoarchaeological data concluded that the study area has a moderate sensitivity for intact buried archaeological resources. Ground-disturbing activities have potential to encounter previously undiscovered or unrecorded archaeological sites and materials, which could result in damage or destruction to these resources, and/or eliminate important examples from major periods of California history or prehistory. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts on cultural resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Worker Awareness Training
Prior to the initiation of project construction, the project applicant shall ensure that all crew members and contractors conducting ground-disturbing activities receive training overseen by a qualified professional archaeologist on the protection of sensitive archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources. As part of the training, workers shall be instructed to halt work if cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities. In addition, workers shall be instructed to not return to work in the location of the find until instructed to do so by management.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
18 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: For All Ground-Disturbing Construction Activities, Halt Ground Disturbance Upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features
If archaeological materials (e.g., locally darkened soils [i.e., midden], stone tools, chipped stone, baked clay, or concentrations of shell, bone, charcoal, glass, metal, or ceramics) are inadvertently discovered during grounddisturbing activities, the contractor shall cease all work within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of the find and the project applicant shall immediately retain the services of a qualified professional archaeologist. At that time, the City’s Manager or their designee (Manager) shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with the archaeologist as needed to evaluate the significance of the resource per PRC Sections 5024.1, 21083.2(g), and 21074 (i.e., to determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique archaeological resource, a historical resource of an archaeological nature, or a tribal cultural resource) and provide proper management recommendations. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovered resource qualifies as, or includes, unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the Manager in consultation with the project applicant. The Manager may also consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO], a representative of any Native American Tribe potentially interested in a possible tribal cultural resource, or any other regulatory agency that the Manager believes may have informed and useful input to provide. Mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place may be accomplished through one or more of the following: planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the Manager, such measures shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the Manager. Avoidance or preservation of unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important project structures or project infrastructure or would require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the Manager in consultation with the project applicant. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Manager, shall prepare a detailed recommended treatment plan for consideration and approval by the Manager, which may include data recovery. Where tribal cultural resources are involved, the Manager shall also consult with any known representative of a Native American Tribe potentially interested in the tribal cultural resource. If employed, data recovery strategies for unique archaeological resources that do not also qualify as historical resources of an archaeological nature shall follow the applicable requirements and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Where tribal cultural resources are involved, data recovery shall not occur over the objections of any known representative of a Native American Tribe potentially interested in the tribal cultural resource. Data recovery will normally consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the Manager or a tribal representative to be inappropriate, then an equally effective treatment shall be proposed and implemented. Where tribal cultural resources are involved, the Manager, in formulating a treatment strategy, shall consult with any known representative of a Native American Tribe potentially interested in the tribal cultural resource. No treatment strategy for tribal cultural resources shall be approved over the objections of such a tribal representative. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the Manager, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, determines that the site either: 1) does not contain unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources; or 2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the Manager’s satisfaction.

Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b, impacts on cultural resources

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 19
would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b identify procedures that would minimize the potential for construction activities to damage or destroy any unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or important examples from major periods of California history or prehistory that may be inadvertently uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a would require construction workers to undergo worker awareness training to be informed of the procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b identifies requirements to halt construction activities in the vicinity of any unanticipated discoveries until a qualified professional archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and provide the City’s Manager with recommendations for the appropriate disposition of the resource. Preference would be given to preservation in place. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the MMRP.

8.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 3.6-1: Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature Project construction would involve ground-disturbing activities in Quaternary and Pleistocene lake sediments, which have high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to result in the destruction of scientifically significant paleontological resources. This impact would be potentially significant.

Findings
As described in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIR, “Environmental Setting,” the Quaternary and Pleistocene lake sediments that underlie the project site have a strong potential to preserve scientifically significant fossils and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity for paleontological resources. This is confirmed in the Paleontological Resource Assessment Memorandum for the Project (Appendix F of the Draft EIR). Project construction would involve excavation to a maximum depth of 10 feet below the ground surface to install underground storage tanks, which would have potential to encounter sediments with high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to result in the destruction of scientifically significant paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measure reduces potentially significant project impacts on geology and soils to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program  Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall retain a federally qualified paleontologist (qualified paleontologist) that meets the standards of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.  Before any ground-disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall conduct pre-construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training. The qualified paleontologist shall conduct any construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training either in person or via a training module. The training shall include information on what types of paleontological resources could be encountered during excavations, what to do in case an unanticipated discovery is made by a worker, and laws protecting paleontological resources. All construction personnel shall be informed of the possibility of encountering fossils and be instructed to immediately inform the construction foreman or supervisor if any bones or other potential fossils are unexpectedly unearthed in an area where a paleontological monitor is not present. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
 The qualified paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who meets the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology standards (2010). The paleontological monitor shall be present during all excavations in the

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
20 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Quaternary lake sediments or when excavations in the alluvium are deep enough to encounter the older Pleistocene lake sediments. The exceptions are borings or auguring less than 3 feet in diameter. Specific depths and monitoring locations will be based on the finalized excavation plans, any available geotechnical reports, and consultation between the qualified paleontologist and the construction liaison.  Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened standard sediment samples (up to 4.0 cubic yards) of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains (SVP 2010). Depending on the conditions encountered, full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the qualified paleontologist, particularly if excavation is limited to artificial fill or the younger alluvium. The qualified paleontologist may spot check the excavation on an intermittent basis and recommend whether the depth of required monitoring should be revised based on his/her observations. Monitoring activities should be documented in a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report to be prepared by the qualified paleontologist at the completion of construction and shall be provided to the applicant within six months of project completion. If fossil resources are identified during monitoring, the report will also be filed with the UCMP or other similar repository.
 If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, the paleontological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities around the exposed resource to facilitate evaluation of the discovery. The qualified paleontologist shall analyze the discovered paleontological resource to determine whether it qualifies as a “unique paleontological resource.” A unique paleontological resource means a paleontological resource about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the two following criteria: (1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or (2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
 During the time period in which this assessment is being conducted, an appropriate buffer area of 50 feet around the fossil discovery shall be established by the qualified paleontologist where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All significant fossils qualifying as unique paleontological resources shall be collected by the paleontological monitor and/or the qualified paleontologist. Collected fossils should be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected should be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the UCMP, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, photographs, and a technical report shall also be filed at the repository and/or school.

Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, impacts on geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on geology and soils.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 includes procedures that provide for the protection of any unique paleontological resources encountered during project construction. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires the applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct pre-construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training. The measure also requires a qualified paleontological monitor to be present for all excavations that are deep enough to encounter sediments with high sensitivity for paleontological resources (i.e., Pleistocene lake sediments). If paleontological resources are encountered during grading and excavation activities, the paleontological monitor would have the authority to divert or redirect construction activities. The paleontological monitor would then collect, identify, and catalogue any significant fossils qualifying as unique paleontological resources, submit the fossils to an appropriate repository, and summarize the findings in a technical report. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be enforced through the MMRP.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 21

8.4 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.10-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource
The study area has a moderate sensitivity for intact buried archaeological resources, including Tribal cultural resources.

Although no Tribal cultural resources were identified within the area of potential ground disturbance, project-related grading and excavation could result in the unanticipated discovery or damage of yet undiscovered Tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074. This impact would be potentially significant.

Findings
As discussed in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR, “Cultural Resources,” a full accounting of all potential cultural resources located within the study area was achieved through a records search, literature review, and field survey. No precontact archaeological sites that may have tribal significance and no Tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074, were identified within the area of potential ground disturbance as part of these efforts. Nevertheless, the analysis of the geoarchaeological data concluded that the study area has a moderate sensitivity for intact buried archaeological resources, including Tribal cultural resources. Project construction would require excavation to a depth of approximately 10 feet that would extend into native soils. Ground-disturbing activities have potential to encounter previously undiscovered or unrecorded archaeological sites and materials, including Tribal cultural resources, which could result in damage or destruction to these resources. This would be a potentially significant impact.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and funerary items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097. These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the appropriate County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant, and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts on tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a: Worker Awareness Training
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a.

Mitigation Measure 3.10-1b: For All Ground-Disturbing Construction Activities, Halt Ground Disturbance Upon Discovery of Subsurface Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b.

Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR analysis of the project (including the analysis in the Draft EIR and in Responses to Comments in the Final EIR) determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.10-1a and 3.10-1b, impacts on tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant and the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.10-1a and 3.10-1b identify procedures that would minimize the potential for construction activities to damage or destroy any unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or important examples from major periods of California history or prehistory that may be inadvertently uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, Mitigation Measure

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
22 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings

3.10-1a would require construction workers to undergo worker awareness training to be informed of the procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery. Mitigation Measure 3.10-1b identifies requirements to halt construction activities in the vicinity of any unanticipated discoveries until a qualified professional archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and provide the City’s Manager with recommendations for the appropriate disposition of the resource. Preference would be given to preservation in place. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the MMRP.
9 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
As summarized in Table ES-1 of the Draft EIR, all of the impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant or reduced to a less-than-significant level after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Additionally, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
10 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

10.1 LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ANALYSIS AND ULTIMATE

SELECTION OR REJECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the Draft EIR included an evaluation of a range of reasonable, potentially feasible alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.

The Draft EIR also included the mandatory No Project Alternative.

As noted earlier, section 15091(a)(3) of the Guidelines describes that one of the findings that a lead agency can make concerning significant project impacts is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.

With respect to project alternatives, “[t]he issue of feasibility arises at two different junctures: (1) in the assessment of alternatives in the EIR and (2) during the agency’s later consideration of whether to approve the project.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981 (CNPS), citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 (Mira Mar).) “But ‘differing factors come into play at each stage.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 981, citing Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), Section 15.9, p. 740.) “For the first phase—inclusion in the EIR—the standard is whether the alternative is potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, subd. (a).) “By contrast, at the second phase—the final decision on project approval—the decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At that juncture, the decisionmakers may reject as infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “While it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision making body ‘may or may not reject those alternatives as being infeasible’ when it comes to project approval.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1504.) “Rejection by the decision makers does not undermine the validity of the EIR's alternatives analysis.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives ‘are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256.)

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 23
“When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “While staff may draft the necessary findings, the decision making body is responsible for the ultimate determination of feasibility, which cannot be delegated.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15025, subd. (b)(2), Section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At this final stage of project approval, the agency considers whether “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000, citing Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (a)(3).) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility than when the EIR preparer is assessing potential feasibility of the alternatives.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000.) Thus, “it does not subvert the CEQA environmental review process for the ultimate decision maker to reject as infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR.” (Ibid.) At the decision-making stage, “‘feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.) Relatedly, the concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether, and how well, a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills); and In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166.) In addition, a proposed alternative may also be legally infeasible. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.) For the reasons discussed above, the use of the term “infeasible” in the Findings below concerning the alternatives is more expansive than references to “potentially feasible” or “feasible” in the EIR's discussion of alternatives, which was limited to technical, logistical, and financial feasibility. An alternative may have been determined to be technically, logistically, and financially “feasible” by City staff in the EIR and still ultimately be concluded by the City Council, as the ultimate decisionmaker on the project, to meet the definition of “infeasibility” per Section 15091(a)(3) as interpreted in case law, when all considerations are accounted for, as discussed above.

The City makes the findings set forth below to support its rejection of the alternatives that were analyzed in the Draft EIR.

10.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIR
Three alternatives, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, were selected for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR. The goal for evaluating these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives. As explained above, however, the EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts of the project could be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures.

The following sections provide a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the project objectives (and thus its feasibility), and a qualitative discussion of its comparative environmental impacts.

10.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project–No Development Alternative

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a “no project” alternative to be evaluated in an EIR (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14 Section 15126.6[e]). The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
24 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Under Alternative 1, the No Project–No Development Alternative, no actions would be taken by the applicant and the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions. The project site would remain vacant and in its current condition. The No Project – No Development Alternative would not meet the project objectives because it would not result in the development of a regional travel center and related commercial land uses that would serve thrumotorists on SR-36 and provide economic benefits to the City.

Although it is acknowledged that with the No Project–No Development Alternative, there would be no discretionary action by the City or Lassen County LAFCO, and thus no impact, for purposes of comparison with the other action alternatives, conclusions for each technical area are characterized as “impacts” that are greater, similar, or less, to describe conditions that are worse than, similar to, or better than those of the proposed project.

REASONS FOR REJECTING ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 1, the No Project–No Development Alternative would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. However, the No Project–No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives the project. The City has discretion to weigh the project objectives, as a matter of policy, and give special consideration to specific objectives in considering the feasibility of alternatives. As the No Project–No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the project, it represents an undesirable policy outcome. The alternative is therefore infeasible. Stated another way, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project-No Development Alternative identified in the Final EIR.

10.2.2 Alternative 2: No Drive-Thru Fast-Food Restaurant Alternative

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
The project proposes two fast-food restaurants, one of which contains a drive-thru component. Alternative 2 would eliminate the drive-thru component of the fast-food restaurant and operate only as a walk-in fast-food restaurant, with the drive-thru lanes occupied by additional parking stalls. Elimination of the drive-thru component of the proposed fast-food restaurant would reduce potential air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle idling and increase the demand for restaurant-related parking.

Alternative 2 would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project because it would create a commercial development with facilities and amenities for travelers along a major transportation corridor. Alternative 2 would contribute to the City’s economic development and increase tax revenue and employment opportunities in the City; however, the economic merits and available services of Alternative 2 would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project because the fast-food drive-thru component would not be constructed, and thus would likely lead to less visitors due to the inconvenience of not having the drive-thru. Therefore, Alternative 2 would meet the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project.

Alternative 2 would occupy a similar area to the proposed project and would be developed at the same project location. Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project with respect to site suitability, availability of infrastructure, and general plan consistency; therefore, the same factors that would affect the physical feasibility of the proposed project would apply to Alternative 2.

REASONS FOR REJECTING ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2, the No Drive-Thru Fast-Food Restaurant Alternative would occupy a similar area to the proposed project and would be developed at the same project location, thus construction-related ground disturbance would be similar to the proposed project. During operations, the absence of a drive-thru component would result in an incremental reduction in energy use and noise associated with drive-thru vehicle idling while waiting for completion of orders. In addition, without the inclusion of the drive-thru, there would be fewer vehicle trips and visitors to the

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 25
project site under Alternative 2, resulting in a decrease in VMT, lower air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and noise compared to the proposed project. However, this alternative would still require construction of the offsite utilities; therefore, this alternative would not avoid any of the impacts associated with construction of the offsite utilities or other ground disturbance impacts on the main project site.

When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. As illustrated in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR, the No Fast-Food Drive-Thru Alternative would be environmentally superior action alternative because although the environmental impacts would be similar to the proposed project and Alternative 3, the reduced degree of fast-food drive-thru traffic would incrementally reduce the emissions of criteria air pollutants, GHGs, noise and VMT generated by the proposed project drive-thru. The incremental decrease in air quality, GHG, noise and transportation impacts is a greater incremental decrease than the reductions associated with Alternative 3.

The City rejects the Alternative for policy reasons and finds it to be infeasible. Alternative 2 would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project because it would create a commercial development with facilities and amenities for travelers along a major transportation corridor. Alternative 2 would contribute to the City’s economic development and increase tax revenue and employment opportunities in the City; however, the economic merits and available services of Alternative 2 would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project because the drive-thru would not be constructed. The City has discretion to weigh the project objectives, as a matter of policy, and give special consideration to specific objectives in considering the feasibility of alternatives. Alternative 2 would not meet the proposed project objective of maximizing tax revenue to the City. Therefore, Alternative 2 would meet the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Additionally, as discussed above, the EIR found that all potential impacts of the Project could be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. For these reasons, the selection of Alternative 2 would not further the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, as described earlier. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 134.) Thus, nothing in CEQA would require the City to approve Alternative 2 even if the City found it to be feasible.

The reductions in environmental impacts that would be achieved by foregoing the drive-thru component of the proposed project are modest in comparison with the benefits of these amenities. Balancing these modest reductions in environmental impacts against the benefits of the drive-thru’s amenities, the City, as policymaker, finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the slightly reduced impacts. Furthermore, the City gives weight to the fact that the applicant sees a business benefit in including the drive-thru in the proposed project. A local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521.) In sum, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible Alternative 2 as identified in the Final EIR.

10.2.3 Alternative 3: No Overnight RV Parking Alternative

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 3 would include all of the elements evaluated under the proposed project as described in Section 2, “Project Description,” except Alternative 3 would eliminate the overnight RV parking component of the proposed project. The project proposes ten (10) RV overnight parking spaces in the northern portion of the site that range in width from 12 to 20 feet. Power and water/wastewater hookups would be provided. Overnight RV parking users are expected to stay one day before continuing on their trip. Similar to the proposed project, construction of the offsite utilities would be needed under Alternative 3 to supply water, and sewer facilities to the travel stop.

Under Alternative 3, the overnight RV parking footprint that would be developed under the proposed project, would be replaced by a larger bioretention basin.

Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Ascent Susanville Travel Stop Project
26 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Alternative 3 would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project because it would create a commercial development with facilities and amenities for travelers along a major transportation corridor. Alternative 3 would contribute to the City’s economic development and increase tax revenue and employment opportunities in the City; however, the economic merits and available services of Alternative 3 would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project because the overnight RV parking area would not be constructed. Therefore, Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would occupy a similar area to the proposed project and would be developed at the same project location. Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project with respect to site suitability, availability of infrastructure, and general plan consistency; therefore, the same factors that would affect the physical feasibility of the proposed project would apply to Alternative 3.

REASONS FOR REJECTING ALTERNATIVE
The environmental impacts of the No Overnight RV Parking alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and this alternative would require similar amounts of ground disturbance with potential to affect sensitive resources (e.g., biological, cultural, and water resources), when compared to the project. During operations, Alternative 3 would generate slightly fewer vehicle trips, which would contribute to slightly less traffic, noise, air pollutant and GHG emissions, energy consumption, and demand on public services and utilities than the other action alternatives or the Project.

The City rejects the Alternative for policy reasons and finds it to be infeasible. Alternative 3 would meet most of the objectives of the proposed project because it would create a commercial development with facilities and amenities for travelers along a major transportation corridor. Alternative 3 would contribute to the City’s economic development and increase tax revenue and employment opportunities in the City; however, the economic merits and available services of Alternative 3 would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed project because the overnight RV parking facility would not be constructed. The City has discretion to weigh the project objectives, as a matter of policy, and give special consideration to specific objectives in considering the feasibility of alternatives.

Alternative 3 would not meet the proposed project objective of maximizing tax revenue to the City. Therefore, Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Additionally, as discussed above, the EIR found that all potential impacts of the Project could be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. For these reasons, the selection of Alternative 3 would not further the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, as described earlier. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Mountain Lion Foundation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 134.) Thus, nothing in CEQA would require the City to approve Alternative 3 even if the City found it to be feasible.

The failure to fully meet the project objectives, and in particular the elimination of the overnight RV parking area, represents an undesirable policy outcome. The overnight RV parking area is a desirable amenity that adds value to the proposed project and would be a welcome addition to the City. If the overnight RV parking area were eliminated, the amenity would have less value to the City and to the driving public.

The reductions in environmental impacts that would be achieved by foregoing the overnight RV parking component of the proposed project are modest in comparison with the benefits of these amenities. Balancing these modest reductions in environmental impacts against the benefits of the overnight RV parking’s amenities, the City, as policymaker, finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the slightly reduced impacts. Furthermore, the City gives weight to the fact that the applicant sees a business benefit in including the overnight RV parking in the proposed project. A local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521.) In sum, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make Alternative 3 infeasible as identified in the Final EIR.

Ascent Administrative Draft – For Internal Review and Deliberation Susanville Travel Stop Project
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings 27
This page is intentionally left blank.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6534

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN MAP TO REDESIGNATE APN# 107-280-017 TO

GENERAL COMMERCIAL/SHOPPING CENTER
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2024 the City of Susanville received applications from Lane Engineers on behalf of Sierra Pacific Industries requesting annexation to the City of Susanville a

79.6-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of State Highway 36 and Skyline Road (APN:
107-280-017) (herein “Project Site”), a General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment to pre-zone the site, Architectural and Site Plan Review, Use Permit, and Sign Permit to develop a travel stop consisting of a convenience store and two fast food restaurants in a 13,005 square foot building with a drive-through, truck and automobile fueling stations, and overnight truck parking and an overnight RV parking area and associated amenities (herein “the Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently located within unincorporated Lassen County and is designated Industrial Park under the Lassen County General Plan and Light Industrial/Business Park on the City of Susanville General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, is contiguous to existing City limits, and designated for potential future expansion of the City boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Light Industrial/Business Park to General Commercial/ Shopping Center to accommodate development of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the General Commercial/ Shopping Center land use designation allows a wide range of commercial uses including service stations, restaurants, retail uses, and other commercial services typically located along major transportation corridors; and WHEREAS, the City of Susanville Zoning Code Section 17.112.070 provides procedural requirements for a general plan map or text amendment; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the project constitutes a discretionary action and is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and issued a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on February 3, 2025; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the Project and circulated for public review from December 17, 2025, through January 31, 2026; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)responding to comments received during the public review period was subsequently prepared; and WHEREAS, the FEIR concluded that environmental impacts associated with the Project would either be less than significant or reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 26- 1200, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Susanville Travel Stop and adopted a statement Finding of Fact in compliance with PRC Section 21081(a)(3); and

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Intermountain News on April 3, 2026 and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby makes the following findings based on the analysis and findings provided in the staff report dated April 15, 2026, and all attachments incorporated here-in by reference:

SECTION 1. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project evaluated environmental impacts associated with the Project including annexation, General Plan land use map and zoning map changes, and land use entitlements (Architectural and Site Plan Review, Use Permit, and Sign Permit applications) for the Love’s Travel Stop.

The EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant or mitigated to less-thansignificant levels with implementation of mitigation measures and preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Accordingly, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council makes general findings and findings regarding each significant adverse environmental effect of the Project as set forth in Exhibit B (Findings of Fact), attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Additionally, consistent with Section 21081(a)(3) the City Council makes findings with respect to alternatives studies in the EIR as set forth in Exhibit B.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and included in the Planning Commission Resolution approving project entitlements and incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all feasible mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the environmental effects of the amendment have been adequately analyzed pursuant to CEQA.

SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in support of approval of the General Plan Amendment:

A. The General Plan amendment is in the Public Interest.

California Government Code Section 65358 authorizes a city to amend its General Plan when the legislative body determines that the amendment is in the public interest.

The proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the Project site from Light Industrial/Business Park to General Commercial/ Shopping Center to allow development of commercial services oriented to travelers and local residents along the SR-36 corridor. The Project would expand commercial services available in the community, support economic activity, create employment opportunities, and generate tax revenues for the City.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the amendment is in the public interest.

B. The General Plan Amendment is Consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Susanville General Plan.

The proposed General Commercial/ Shopping Center designation is intended to accommodate a wide range of commercial uses serving both local and regional

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
needs and specifically contemplates uses such as service stations, restaurants, and similar commercial services along major transportation corridors.

The proposed travel stop includes automobile and truck fueling facilities, convenience retail, fast-food restaurants with drive-through service, and recreational vehicle services, which are consistent with the types of uses contemplated within the General Commercial/ Shopping Center designation. The Project is also consistent with applicable General Plan policies including those related to:

Community character and commercial development quality
Safe and efficient circulation along major transportation corridors Economic development and expansion of commercial services.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Susanville General Plan.

C. The Amendment is Compatible with Surrounding Land Uses.

The Project Site is located at the southern edge of the City and is surrounded primarily by vacant land and commercial development located north of the Susan River along SR-36.

The proposed commercial designation and travel stop use are compatible with surrounding commercial uses, including retail stores, restaurants, and other highwayoriented services in the vicinity.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not adversely affect the character of the area.

D. The Amendment Supports Orderly Growth and Development.

The property is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and adjacent to existing City limits, and annexation of the Project Site represents a logical extension of municipal boundaries.

Amending the General Plan land use designation allows the City to guide development within its Sphere of Influence and ensure that future development occurs in a manner consistent with City planning policies and municipal service capabilities.

Accordingly, the City Council finds that the amendment promotes orderly growth and development of the City.

E. The Amendment Complies with State Law Limiting General Plan Amendments.

Government Code Section 65358 limits amendments to mandatory elements of the General Plan to four times per calendar year. The proposed amendment represents the first General Plan amendment considered by the City in the 2026 calendar year and therefore complies with the requirements of State law.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
APPROVED: ________________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 7.B.

Standard Workflow
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6525, upholding the administrative citations issued against 602 Main St. (APN: 103-303-002-000) Presented By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Summary: On September 3, 2025, a Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner of the above-referenced property in regard to a broken and boarded window on the Northwest corner of the building. Section § 8.52.030 of the Susanville Municipal Code (SMC) declares faulty weather protection, including broken, damaged or missing windows to be unlawful and are defined as and declared to be public nuisances which have a tendency to degrade the appearance and property values of surrounding property. After some time, as detailed in the attached staff report, the nuisance remained and a second Notice of Violation was issued on February 5, 2026, requesting voluntary compliance on or before February 17, 2026. On February 18, 2026, the nuisance remained and citation #COS2026-001 was issued in accordance with the provisions of SMC § 8.40.050. On March 2, 2026, the nuisance remained and citation #COS2026-002 was issued in accordance with the provisions of SMC § 8.40.050. To date, no payments have been made to the City of Susanville and
resolutions have been provided to this hearing board to either uphold or dismiss these citations.

Fiscal Impact: If the total amount of the administrative citation fines is collected, then the general fund would see revenue in the amount of $300.00 plus any late payment charges and interest that may accrue in accordance with the provisions of SMC § 8.40.150.

Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6525, upholding the administrative citations issued against 602 Main St. (APN: 103- 303-002-000)
Attachments:

1. 26-6525.uphold

2. 26-6526.dismiss

3. 26-4-15 Staff Report

4. Letter from Owner

5. 25-8-27 Photo

6. 25-9-3 N.O.V

7. 26-1-30 Brick Top

8. 26-1-30 Brick Side

9. 26-2-5 NOV #2

10. 26-2-5 Decl. of Mail

11. 26-2-18 Brick Front

12. 26-2-18 Administrative Citation #COS2026-001

13. 26-2-18 Decl. of Mail

14. 26-3-2 Posting

15. 26-3-2 T1-11 Side-Top

16. 26-3-2 Administrative Citation #COS2026-002

17. 26-3-12 Side Early

18. 26-3-12 Side2 Early

19. 26-3-12 Notice of Pending Citation

20. 26-3-12 Gap Later

21. 26-3-12 Side Later

22. 26-3-12 Side2 Later

23. 26-3-24 Side

24. 26-3-24 Side2

25. 26-3-24 Final Front

26. 26-4-1 Notice of Hearing

27. 26-4-1 Decl. of Mail

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6525

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE TO UPHOLD ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS ISSUED AGAINST 602 MAIN STREET (APN: 103-303-002-000)

WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) authorizes the City of Susanville to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a nuisance, the procedures for abating nuisance conditions, providing for the recovery of costs and attorney fees to abate the nuisance and providing for the collection of civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the Susanville City Council adopted Ordinance 17-1011 on June 7, 2017, that declares what constitutes a nuisance, and adopted Chapters 8.40 and 8.52 of the Susanville Municipal Code to outline property maintenance standards and the issuance of administrative citations; and
WHEREAS, A Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner of record, Susan Chaffer Revokable Trust, at the address as it appears on the last equalized assessment roll; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.40, Code Enforcement staff issued Administrative Citation #COS2026-001 on February 18, 2026 and #COS2026-002 on March 2, 2026 for violations of the Susanville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the property owner, Susan Chaffer filed a request for Administrative Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the administrative citations have been reviewed to determine whether they were validly issued considering the reasons given by the property owner, Susan Chaffer, for contesting it and requesting an administrative hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby finds that the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation are factually true and did constitute a public nuisance at 602 Main St (APN: 103-303-002-000); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby upholds the administrative citations and orders the property owner to pay the full balance of three hundred dollars ($300.00) within fifteen (15) days of this decision.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABSTAIN: _____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6526

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

TO DISMISS ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS ISSUED AGAINST
602 MAIN STREET (APN: 103-303-002-000)

WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) authorizes the City of Susanville to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a nuisance, the procedures for abating nuisance conditions, providing for the recovery of costs and attorney fees to abate the nuisance and providing for the collection of civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the Susanville City Council adopted Ordinance 17-1011 on June 7, 2017, that declares what constitutes a nuisance, and adopted Chapters 8.40 and 8.52 of the Susanville Municipal Code to outline property maintenance standards and the issuance of administrative citations; and
WHEREAS, A Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner of record, Susan Chaffer Revokable Trust at the address as it appears on the last equalized assessment roll (474 Lexington Drive, Folsom CA. 95630); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 8.40, Code Enforcement staff issued Administrative Citation #COS2026-001 on February 18, 2026 and #COS2026-002 on March 2, 2026 for violations of the Susanville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the property owner, Susan Chaffer filed a request for Administrative Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the administrative citations have been reviewed to determine whether they were validly issued considering the reasons given by the property owner, Susan Chaffer, for contesting it and requesting an administrative hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby dismisses administrative citation #COS2026-001 and #COS2026-002 issued against 602 Main St., APN:103-303-002-000, and owned by Susan Elayne Chafffer Revocable Trust.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: _____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Citation
Appeal Hearing
Staff Report
1 | 602 Main Street
Property Details
Address: 602 Main Street, Susanville, California 96130
APN: 103-303-002-000
Property Owner: Susan Elayne Chaffer Revocable Trust
Background
The enforcement of the Susanville Municipal Code, other ordinances adopted by the city, conditions of approval of entitlements, permits, and CEQA reviews, and terms and conditions of city agreement made pursuant to the police power is a matter of public health, safety, and welfare and serves important public purposes. Section 8.52.030 of the SMC declares faulty weather protection, including broken, damaged or missing windows to be unlawful and are defined as and declared to be public nuisances which have a tendency to degrade the appearance and property values of surrounding property.

On September 3, 2025, a Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner in regard to a broken and boarded window on the Northwest corner of the building.

On or about October 13, 2025, the violation continued to exist, and I met with the business owner, Mr. Cagle, who stated he would remedy the violation and a verbal compliance date of October 28, 2025, was agreed upon.

On October 27, 2025, Mr. Cagle provided an invoice from 4J House Repair stating the work would be completed by late November.

On December 4, 2025, the violation continued to exist, and I requested a progress update from Mr. Cagle via e-mail. He responded same day stating it would take another couple weeks.

On January 5, 2026, the violation continued to exist, and I requested a progress update via email. Mr. Cagle responded same day stating there were issues with the glass company and was exploring the option of framing the window in to blend with the building.

On January 13, 2026, I met with Mr. Cagle, and he informed me the repair materials were on the way and installation would be completed within a week. Given the window’s proximity to the wall and with the expectation the repairs would provide adequate weather protection, I agreed.

On January 21, 2026, the nuisance continued to exist. I entered the store with the intent to serve an administrative citation as provided by 8.40 of the SMC. At that time, Mr. Cagle showed me a materials receipt on his phone showing delivery of repair materials expected later that day.

The citation was not issued.

On January 23, 2026, Mr. Cagle informed me the repairs had been completed.

On January 30, 2026, I conducted a compliance inspection finding insufficient repairs, informed Mr. Cagle of my findings and offered to include the Building Official in the discussion to answer any questions.

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Citation
Appeal Hearing
Staff Report
2 | 602 Main Street
On February 5, 2026, the violations continued to exist, and given the amount of time that had elapsed, a second Notice of Violation was sent to the property and business owner providing a February 17, 2026, deadline to bring the property into voluntary compliance.

On February 10, 2026, I received a call from the property owner, Sue Chaffer, who stated she has been trying to get Mr. Cagle to fix the window for nearly 3 years per her rental agreement.

On February 12, 2026, the Building Official and I met with Mr. Cagle, at his request, who inquired about glass alternatives and proposed T1-11 siding. Dow answered some clarifying questions and provided general guidelines on weatherproof requirements.

On February 18, 2026, the violation continued to exist and Citation #COS2026-001 was issued in accordance with 8.40 of the SMC.

On March 2, 2026, the violation continued to exist, Citation #COS2026-002 was issued in accordance with 8.40 of the SMC, and I contacted Mrs. Chaffer via telephone to inform her of the situation.

On March 10, 2026, a request for an appeal hearing and hardship waiver were received via email from the property owner.

On March 12, 2026, based on continued communication from the property owner, the recently filed hearing request, and observable efforts noted during an inspection, a letter was sent stating the issuance of subsequent citations would be postponed for 10 days to provide another opportunity to complete the repair. Later that day, Mr. Cagle requested an inspection stating the repairs were complete. I informed him of my earlier inspection having found insufficient weather protection. He stated sealant had since been applied and I conducted another inspection finding insufficient weather proofing. I then called Mrs. Chaffer to inform her of recent developments and the current status of repairs needed. She stated that she had received photos of the repair from Mr. Cagle, was pleased with the outcome, and that she cannot afford to do any further repairs.

On March 16, 2026, Mr. Cagle requested an inspection. I asked if he intended to paint the siding to match the building and he stated that he considered the repairs complete.

On March 24, 2026, I was informed by my supervisor that the siding had been painted, and I conducted an inspection noting the changes.

On April 1, 2026, notice of this hearing and a copy of this report was provided to the property owner in accordance with the provisions of § 8.40.100.

Requested Action
Staff is asking the Council to consider Resolution No. 26-6525 to:

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Citation
Appeal Hearing
Staff Report
3 | 602 Main Street
A. Uphold the administrative citations and associated fines totaling $300.00; and B. Order payment of the administrative fines within fifteen (15) days from the date of this decision.

Agenda Item No. 7.C.

Standard Workflow
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6527, approving recordation of a lien for unpaid administrative penalties issued against 1101 Arnold Street (APN:103-232-007-000)
Presented By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Summary: On October 1, 2025, the Susanville Planning Commission declared nuisance conditions on the above referenced property and adopted Resolution No. 25-1196 approving the issuance of Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-007. An administrative penalty in the amount of $500 per day was also ordered to begin November 1, 2025, and continue to accumulate each day until the nuisance was abated or the maximum penalty of $10,000, exclusive of
administrative costs and interest, was reached. On December 2, 2025, the nuisance conditions continued to exist, and a Notice of Administrative Penalties was issued stating the maximum allowable penalty of $10,000 had been reached. Payment was due on or before December 23, 2025. To date, no payments have been received by the City of Susanville.

Fiscal Impact: If the total amount of administrative penalties is collected, then the general fund would see revenue in the amount of $10,000 plus interest accrued at a rate of 10% per annum, pro rata, beginning 12/24/25 until date of payment.

Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6527, approving recordation of a lien for unpaid administrative civil penalties issued against 1101 Arnold Street (APN:103-232-007-000)
Attachments:

1. 26-6527

2. 26-4-15 Lien Hearing Staff Report

3. 25-10-1 Reso. 25-1196 & NA2025-007

4. 25-10-3 Notice of Abatement Order

5. 25-10-3 Decl. of Mail

6. 25-11-6 Photo

7. 25-11-6 Photo

8. 25-11-6 Notice of Abatement Order Noncompliance

9. 25-11-6 Decl. of Mail

10. 25-12-2 Photo

11. 25-12-2 Notice of Administrative Penalty

12. 25-12-2 Decl. of Mail

13. 26-4-1 Notice of Lien Hearing

14. 26-4-1 Decl of Mail

15. 26-4-1 Photo

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6527

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

APPROVING A LIEN TO BE RECORDED WITH THE LASSEN COUNTY RECORDER FOR UNPAID ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES ISSUED AGAINST 1101 ARNOLD STREET (APN 103-232-007-000)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) authorizes the City of Susanville to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a nuisance, the procedures for abating nuisance conditions, providing for the recovery of costs and attorney fees to abate the nuisance, and providing for the collection of civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the Susanville City Council adopted Ordinance 17-1011, that declares what constitutes a nuisance, and adopted Chapter 8.32 of the Susanville Municipal Code to outline the procedures for the abatement of nuisance conditions and for the collection of fines and penalties associated with the issuance of administrative civil penalties; and WHEREAS, October 1, 2025, the Susanville Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-1196 imposing an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 per day beginning November 1, 2025 and continuing to accumulate each day until the nuisance was abated or the maximum penalty of $10,000, exclusive of administrative costs and interest, was reached; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, nuisance conditions continued to exist, and a Notice of Penalty was sent to the property owner stating full payment was due on or before December 23, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the amount of unpaid administrative penalties as of April 1, 2026, is in the amount of $10,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the city clerk shall record the lien with the Lassen County Recorders Office no sooner than 30 days from the date of this decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, City Council of the City of Susanville orders the amount of $10,000.00 be paid within 30 days of this decision, and interest shall continue to accrue at the rate of ten percent per annum, pro-rata, until the date full payment is received by the city; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in the event of non-payment, the City Council of the City of Susanville orders the recordation of this resolution with the Office of the Clerk-Recorder for the County of Lassen and that such recordation shall constitute a lien with the same force, effect and priority of a judgment lien against the real property located at 1101 Arnold Street, APN: 103-232-007-000, and owned by Morales Ronnie Revocable Living Trust.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Penalty
Lien Hearing
Staff Report
1 | 1101 Monrovia Street
Property Details
Address: 1101 Arnold Street, Susanville, California 96130 APN: 103-232-007-000
Property Owner: Morales Ronnie Revocable Living Trust
Background
The enforcement of the Susanville Municipal Code, other ordinances adopted by the city, conditions of approval of entitlements, permits, and CEQA reviews, and terms and conditions of city agreement made pursuant to the police power is a matter of public health, safety, and welfare and serves important public purposes.

As authorized by Susanville Municipal Code § 8.32.290, on October 1, 2025, the Susanville Planning Commission declared nuisance conditions on the above referenced property and adopted Resolution No. 25-1196 approving the issuance of Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-007. An administrative penalty in the amount of $500 per day was also ordered to begin November 1, 2025, and continue to accumulate each day until the nuisance was abated or the maximum penalty of $10,000, exclusive of administrative costs and interest, was reached.

On December 2, 2025, the nuisance conditions continued to exist, and a Notice of Administrative Penalties was issued stating the maximum allowable penalty of $10,000 had been reached. Payment was due on or before December 23, 2025.

To date, no payments have been received by the City of Susanville.

Recovery of Administrative Penalties
§ 8.32.290 (B) states: “Penalties assessed by the board are a debt owed to the City and, in addition to all other means of enforcement, where the person against whom the penalties are assessed is an owner of the subject real property, may be enforced and collected through the placement of a lien against the subject real property.” § 8.36.160 states in pertinent part: “Whenever the amount of any administrative penalty…has not been satisfied in full within 90 days and/or has not been successfully challenged by a timely writ of mandate, this obligation may constitute a lien against the real property on which the violation occurred.”
Interest
§ 8.32.310 of the SMC states: “Any person who fails to remit payment to the city of any penalty, cost or any other charge required to be paid to the city pursuant to a nuisance abatement order under this chapter on or before the date the penalty, cost or other charge is due shall, in addition to the amount of the penalty, cost, and charge, pay interest on the amounts due at the rate of ten percent per annum, pro-rata, from the date on which the amount due first became delinquent until the date that payment is received by the city.”

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Penalty
Lien Hearing
Staff Report
2 | 1101 Monrovia Street
On April 1, 2026, a Notice of Public Hearing was sent to the owner of record via certified mail and posted in a conspicuous place on the premises in accordance with the provisions of §

8.32.110.

As the fines, penalties, and/or interest have not been collected Staff is asking the council to consider Resolution No. 26-6527 to:

A. Order payment of the administrative penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 plus any accrued interest within 30 days of the decision; and
B. If unpaid within 30 days of the decision, orders the recordation of the resolution with the Office of the Clerk-Recorder for the County of Lassen and that such recordation shall constitute a lien with the same force, effect and priority of a judgment lien against the real property located at 1101 Arnold Street, APN 103-232-007-000, and owned by Ronnie Morales Revocable Living Trust.

Agenda Item No. 7.D.

Standard Workflow
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6528, confirming a cost report of abatement and incidental expenses incurred by the City of Susanville for the execution of Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-001 at 17 Orange Street (APN: 107-152-011-000) Presented By: Mike Prettyman, Code Enforcement Officer
Summary: On February 11, 2025, the Susanville Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-1190 declaring nuisance conditions at 17 Orange Street and issued Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025- 001 authorizing the City of Susanville to perform the necessary abatement work. On May 14, 2025, Code Enforcement obtained Warrant #25-08 from the Superior Court of California County of Lassen to inspect and abate the nuisance conditions. Abatement actions to secure the structure against unauthorized entry were executed May 21st through May 22nd, 2025. On or around June 27, 2025, as authorized by § 8.28.040, the Susanville Fire Department concluded the removal of overgrown weeds and hazardous
vegetation. The nuisance abatement order expired in February 2026 and no further physical abatement actions have occurred.

The total cost of abatement and incidental expenses is in the amount of $3,965.37, as itemized in the attached cost report, and recoverable as provided by § 8.32.200.

Fiscal Impact: If the total amount of costs is collected, then the general fund would see revenue in the amount of $3,965.37 plus any interest that may accrue in accordance with the provisions of SMC §

8.32.310.

Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6528, confirming a cost report of abatement and incidental expenses incurred by the City of Susanville for the execution of Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-001 at 17 Orange Street (APN: 107-152-011-000) Attachments:

1. 26-6528

2. 26-4-15 Staff Report

3. 26-4-15 Cost Report

4. 25-2-12 PC Reso & Order

5. Warrant #25-08

6. 25-5-21 Abatement Supply Reciepts

7. 25-5-22 Abatement Supply Reciepts

8. 25-6-27 INV 1005883- 17 ORANGE

9. 26-4-1 Notice of Cost Hearing

10. 26-4-1 Decl. of Mail

11. 20250429_135059

12. 20250429_135143

13. 20250429_135207

14. 20250429_135228

15. 20250429_135336

16. 20250521_133245

17. 20250521_133304

18. 20250701_105215

19. 20250701_105249

20. 20250701_105300

21. 20250701_105326

22. 20260401_123517

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6528

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

CONFIRMING A COST REPORT OF ABATEMENT AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES

INCURRED BY THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE FOR THE EXECUTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER NA2025-001 AT 17 ORANGE STREET
(APN: 107-152-011-000)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 36901, 38771, and 38773.5(a) authorizes the City of Susanville to enact ordinances declaring what constitutes a nuisance, the procedures for abating nuisance conditions and provides for the recovery of costs incurred by the City to abate the nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the Susanville City Council adopted Ordinance 17-1011, that declares conditions of real property that constitute a public nuisance, provides for the abatement of such nuisance conditions, and provides for the collection of costs incurred by the City in performing such abatement; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Susanville adopted Resolution No. 25-1190 approving the issuance of Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-001 authorizing the City of Susanville to perform the necessary abatement work at 17 Orange Street (APN: 107-152-011-000); and
WHEREAS, the City of Susanville removed large amounts of overgrown and hazardous vegetation from the premises and secured the unsafe single-family residence against unauthorized entry; and
WHEREAS, the cost of abatement and incidental expenses are shown in the amount of $3,965.37 and recoverable as provided by Susanville Municipal Code 8.32.200; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Hearing and Cost Report have been served to the property owner of record, Debbie Routhier, at the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll (1087 Lourence Dr. Tracy CA. 95376) and in accordance with Susanville Municipal Code

8.32.110; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby confirms the amounts submitted in the cost report totaling $3,965.37 and orders full payment be made to the City of Susanville within thirty (30) days of this decision; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, if unpaid within thirty (30) days of this decision, the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby orders the recordation of the resolution with the Office of the Clerk-Recorder for the County of Lassen and that such recordation shall constitute a special assessment lien on the county tax rolls in the manner provided in Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. Thereafter, all laws applicable to the levy collection and enforcement of property taxes shall be applicable to such special assessment against the real property located at 17 Orange St., APN: 107-152-011-000, and owned by Debbie Routhier.

APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Staff Report
1 | 17 Orange Street
Property Details
Address: 17 Orange Street, Susanville, California 96130 APN: 107-152-011-000
Property Owner: Debbie Routhier
Background
As authorized by Susanville Municipal Code § 8.32.130, on February 11, 2025, the Susanville Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-1190 declaring nuisance conditions at 17 Orange Street (APN: 107-152-011-000) and issued Nuisance Abatement Order NA2025-001 authorizing the City of Susanville to perform the necessary abatement work.

On May 14, 2025, Code Enforcement obtained Warrant #25-08 from the Superior Court of California County of Lassen to inspect and abate the nuisance conditions. Abatement actions to secure the structure against unauthorized entry were executed May 21st through May 22nd, 2025.

On or around June 27, 2025, as authorized by § 8.28.040, the Susanville Fire Department concluded the removal of overgrown weeds and hazardous vegetation.

The nuisance abatement order expired in February 2026 and no further physical abatement actions have occurred.

Notice of this hearing was sent to the owner of record on April 1, 2026 via 1st Class and Certified Mail and physically posted in a conspicuous place on the premises as required by § 8.32.110.

Abatement Authorization and Cost Report Requirements
§ 8.32.190 of the SMC states: “Where a responsible party has failed to abate a nuisance within the time prescribed by a nuisance abatement order approved by the hearing board and served on such responsible party in the manner provided for by this chapter, the enforcement official, with approval of the city manager, shall cause the nuisance to be abated either by the use of city forces or by employing a private contractor to perform such work.” § 8.32.200 of the SMC states in pertinent part: “The enforcement official or such other city official as may be designated shall keep an account of all costs incurred by the city in abating nuisances on each separate lot or parcel of land where the work is done and shall render a written itemized report to the city council. Costs shall include the expense of abating such nuisance and shall be itemized showing the cost of abatement and the rehabilitation, repair, improvement, relocation, vacation, demolition or removal of said premises, building or structures, including any salvage value relating thereto and any incidental expenses; . . .

The term "incidental expenses" shall include, but not be limited to, the actual expenses and costs of the city in obtaining title reports, in the preparation and service of notices, preparation of specifications the preparation and award of contracts, all costs of inspecting any work done pursuant to this chapter, the costs of printing and mailing required hereunder, the costs of preparing materials for any hearing held pursuant to this chapter, penalties, permit fees, late

CITY OF SUSANVILLE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Staff Report
2 | 17 Orange Street
charges, interest, conducting hearings, attorneys' fees, and a reasonable additional sum to cover the cost of administrative overhead.”
Hearing Procedure and Resolution Requirements
§ 8.32.210 of the SMC states: “At the time and place fixed for receiving and considering the cost report, the city council shall receive, hear and consider the report, together with any other relevant evidence, objections, protests or testimony. Thereupon, the council may make such revision, correction or modification to the report as it may deem just after which, by resolution, the details of the report, as submitted or as revised, corrected or modified, shall be confirmed.

Protests and objections shall relate to expenses for abatement and related administrative costs and not to the merits of underlying violations. The council resolution shall set forth the cost of the abatement, date of the order, a brief description of the abatement work performed by or on behalf of the city, describe the property upon which such work was performed by legal description, assessor's parcel number, and where possible by a street address, contain the name and current address of the owner of such property and shall include a date set by which time the cost of abatement shall be due. In addition, the resolution shall provide for collection of the assessment in the event of nonpayment either by recordation of the council resolution in the manner provided for by Section 38773.1 of the California Government Code as a lien on the property, by including the assessment on the county tax rolls in the manner provided for by Section 38773.5 of the Government Code or as a personal debt against the responsible party.” Interest
§ 8.32.310 of the SMC states: “Any person who fails to remit payment to the city of any penalty, cost or any other charge required to be paid to the city pursuant to a nuisance abatement order under this chapter on or before the date the penalty, cost or other charge is due shall, in addition to the amount of the penalty, cost, and charge, pay interest on the amounts due at the rate of ten percent per annum, pro-rata, from the date on which the amount due first became delinquent until the date that payment is received by the city.” Summary and Requested Action
The total cost of abatement and incidental expenses is in the amount of $3,965.37, as itemized in the attached cost report, and recoverable as provided by § 8.32.200.

Said costs have not been collected and Staff is asking the council to consider Resolution No. 26-6528 to:

A. Confirm amounts submitted in the cost report totaling $3,965.37 and order full payment be made to the City of Susanville within 30 days of the decision; and B. If unpaid within 30 days of the decision, order the recordation of the resolution with the Office of the Clerk-Recorder for the County of Lassen and that such recordation shall constitute special assessment lien on the county tax rolls in the manner provided in Section 38773.5 of the Government Code. Thereafter, all laws applicable to the levy collection and enforcement of property taxes shall be applicable to such special assessment against the real property located at 17 Orange St., APN: 107-152-011-000, and owned by Debbie Routhier.

ITEMIZED COST REPORT
17 Orange St., Susanville CA. 96130
APN: 107-152-011-000
Employee Date Hrs. Rate Total Description
Code Enforcement 11/20/2024 1 $ 51.90 $ 51.90 Draft & Mail NON - Build Case File 12/26/2024 0.5 $ 51.90 $ 25.95 Inspection
12/26/2024 1 $ 51.90 $ 51.90 Draft / Mail & Post NTA
2/11/2025 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Resolutions - Abatement Order - Hearing 2/13/2025 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Draft / Mail / and Post Notice of PC Decision 3/6/2025 0.5 $ 51.90 $ 25.95 Draft / Mail Notice of Penalty 5/14/2025 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Warrant
5/21/2025 3 $ 51.90 $ 155.70 Abatement - Boards
5/22/2025 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Abatement - Paint
2/23/2026 1 $ 51.90 $ 51.90 Draft / Mail / Post Notice of Lien Hearing 3/18/2026 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Draft Resolution - Staff Report - Lien Hearing 3/20/2026 1 $ 51.90 $ 51.90 Draft / Mail / Post Notice of CC Decision 4/1/2026 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Draft / Mail / Post Cost Report and Notice 4/15/2026 2 $ 51.90 $ 103.80 Draft Resolution - Cost Hearing Acting P.W. Director 11/20/2024 0.25 $ 98.17 $ 24.54 Review & Approve NON Draft 12/26/2024 0.25 $ 98.17 $ 24.54 Review & Approve NTA Draft 2/11/2025 1 $ 98.17 $ 98.17 Review & Approve Agenda Item - Hearing 2/13/2025 1 $ 98.17 $ 98.17 Review & Approve NOD Draft - Discuss 3/6/2025 1 $ 98.17 $ 98.17 Review & Approve Draft - Notice of Penalty 2/23/2026 0.25 $ 98.17 $ 24.54 Review & Approve Draft - Notice of Lien Hearing 3/18/2026 1 $ 98.17 $ 98.17 Review & Approve Agenda Item - Lien Hearing 3/20/2026 0.5 $ 98.17 $ 49.09 Review & Approve Draft - Notice of Decision 4/1/2026 0.5 $ 51.90 $ 25.95 Review & Approve Draft - Report and Notice 4/15/2026 1 $ 51.90 $ 51.90 Review & Approve Agenda item - Cost Hearing Material Costs 5/21/2025 5 $ 23.99 $ 119.95 Plywood
5/21/2025 0.5 $ 47.99 $ 24.00 Screws
5/23/2025 0.25 $ 8.99 $ 2.25 Paint Roller
5/23/2025 1 $ 2.59 $ 2.59 Paint Tray Liner
Susanville Fire Dept. 6/27/2025 1 $ 2,081.54 $ 2,081.54 Weed Abatement Total $ 3,965.37

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF LASSEN

INSPECTION AND ABATEMENT WARRANT AND AFFIDAVIT
Warrant #: ___________________
(AFFIDAVIT)
I ________________________________, swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the facts expressed by me in the attached and incorporated STATEMENT OF CAUSE are true, and that based thereon I have cause to believe, and do believe, that a public nuisance and a threat to public health, safety and welfare exists at ______________________________________________________________________________, and request an inspection and abatement warrant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1822.50 et seq., as indicated below. Therefore, I request that this Inspection and Abatement Warrant be issued:

NIGHT SEARCH REQUESTED (6:00 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M.): ☐ YES ☐ NO EXECUTION IN ABSENCE OF OWNER/TENANT REQUESTED: ☐ YES ☐ NO FORCIBLE ENTRY REQUESTED: ☐ YES ☐ NO
CONSENT PREVIOUSLY REFUSED: ☐ YES ☐ NO
NO ADVANCED NOTICE REQUESTED: ☐ YES ☐ NO
__________________________________________
[Signature of Affiant]
(INSPECTION & ABATEMENT WARRANT)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA to any Peace Officer, and any City of Susanville official granted authority to conduct inspections and abatements authorized by the State of California or Susanville Municipal Code relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning:

Proof by affidavit under penalty of perjury having been made before me by ________________________________ that cause for issuance of an inspection and abatement warrant exists per Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.52, as indicated below:
☐ Reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting a routine or area inspection are satisfied with respect to the particular place, dwelling, structure, premises, or vehicle. ☐ There is reason to believe that a condition of nonconformity exists with respect to the particular place, dwelling, structure, premises, or vehicle, namely violations of:

Docusign Envelope ID: 5DF7F1F3-343C-41BF-97F8-2C6C045B87DE Susanville’s Property Maintenance and Public Nuisance Ordinance, Ordinance 17-1011, California Building Code, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.

X
X
X
Michael Prettyman
X
X
Michael Prettyman
YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO INSPECT AND ABATE the property assigned assessor’s parcel number 107-152-011-000 and is also identified by the assigned address of 17 Orange St., Susanville, California 96130. You are commanded to inspect and abate any and all public nuisances that exist within the parcel. You are commanded to inspect and abate the dangerous building that is located on 17 Orange Street. You are commanded to enter the structure, including all rooms, attics, basements, and other containers and parts within and the surrounding grounds and garages, storage rooms, containers, and outbuildings of any kind located there at, or under the control of the owner.
17 Orange Street, Susanville CA. 96130 (APN: 107-152-011-000) X
25-08

This Inspection and Abatement Warrant shall be effective for 14 days after the date and time stated below.

This Inspection & Abatement Warrant and Affidavit and attached and incorporated Statement of Cause were sworn as true and subscribed before me on this date and time _____________________________.

Wherefore, I find probable cause for the issuance of this Inspection and Abatement Warrant and do so issue it.

NIGHT SEARCH APPROVED (6:00 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M.): ☐ YES ☐ NO EXECUTION IN ABSENCE OF OWNER/TENANT APPROVED: ☐ YES ☐ NO FORCIBLE ENTRY APPROVED: ☐ YES ☐ NO
CONSENT PREVIOUSLY REFUSED: ☐ YES ☐ NO
NO ADVANCED NOTICE APPROVED: ☐ YES ☐ NO

_____________________________________________
[Signature of Magistrate]
Judge of the Superior Court, County of Lassen
_________________________________________
[Magistrate’s Printed Name]
Docusign Envelope ID: 5DF7F1F3-343C-41BF-97F8-2C6C045B87DE 05/14/2025 | 12:08:48 PDT
X
X
X
X
X
Mark Nareau

SUSANVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT

INVOICE
1505 Main Street
Susanville, CA 96130
Date Number Page
Phone: 530-257-5152
06/27/2025 1005883 1
Bill To: ROUTHIER, DEBBIE Customer No. 100340 1087 LOURENCE DR TRACY CA 95376 Due Date
Terms:

Quantity Description Unit Price Net Amount
1 WEED ABATEMENT BILLING- 17 ORANGE STREET 2,081.54 2,081.54 Amount 2,081.54
Balance Due 2,081.54
Make all checks payable to City of Susanville. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, contact the Susanville Fire Department.

Mail payment to:

Susanville Fire Department
1505 Main Street
Susanville, CA 96130
NET 30 DAYS
30 DAYS FROM INVOICE DATE

Agenda Item No. 9.A.

Standard Workflow
City Council Agenda Item
Submitted By: Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
Action Date: April 15, 2026
Subject: Consider Resolution No. 26-6529, authorizing the releasing of Tuscorora natural gas pipeline capacity to IGI Resources (IGI) until April 30, 2029, and further authorizing the City Manager to execute two updated agreements with IGI including the proposed Asset Management Agreement and the consolidated Transaction
Agreement.

Presented By: Dan Bergman of IGI Resources
Summary:

The City of Susanville holds 1,000 MMBtu per day of firm natural gas pipeline capacity on Tuscarora Gas Transmission to assure delivery of the city’s gas from Malin, Oregon, to Susanville’s citygate connection point at Chappius Lane and Center Road. The city holds this capacity until 2042, which was obtained when the Tuscarora and City gas systems were built.

During the summer months the City does not need the full 1,000 MMBtu per day of capacity; however, before the City first released the capacity to IGI in 2021, the City continued to pay the Tuscarora fixed Reservation Charge for the full capacity, whether the capacity was used or not used. The table under Fiscal Impact shows the excess capacity during the 2025.

Beginning September 1, 2021, IGI accepted release of the entire capacity and has paid the full Reservation Charge pursuant to Tuscarora’s FERC-approved Gas Tariff. This is allowed under FERC rules and is standard practice when mutually beneficial to parties. The benefit to the City is that it will no longer pay for stranded capacity in the summer. The benefit to IGI is that it can pool the City’s capacity with other capacity it manages to fully utilize the capacity during the summer months.

Regarding risk, IGI Resources, Inc. is owned by BP Global Energy Trading, a large and reputable corporation. Further, IGI has been providing competitively priced gas supply to the City and coordinating gas deliveries since the beginning of gas system operations in 2002.

The term of the capacity release agreement is limited to three years, at which point the capacity is returned to the City, or the City may elect to extend the capacity release. This is the first proposed extension of the capacity release to IGI. Finally, the contract terms

provide the same level of transportation reliability on Tuscarora.

Two agreements are required to continue capacity release and operational services with IGI. The first is the Asset Management Agreement Addendum (AMA Addendum) that specifies the terms and conditions for the Tuscarora capacity to be released to IGI. The second agreement is the AMA Transaction Confirmation (TC). This TC supersedes previous TCs, specifying the structure for gas purchases, but does not include any existing fixed-price purchases because none are in place presently.

This ongoing capacity release transaction has been facilitated by Dan Bergmann of Interstate Gas Services, Inc. (DBA IGService). Mr.

Bergmann has provided consulting support to the City’s gas system for 20 years.

Staff is requesting the approval to release until April 30, 2029, City of Susanville’s 1,000 MMBtu per day Tuscarora firm pipeline capacity to IGI Resources, Inc. (IGI), and, in conjunction, to extend to April 30, 2029, two agreements with IGI for services to the City. Authorization is requested for the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Susanville the proposed Asset Management Agreement and
consolidated Transaction Agreement, accordingly.

Fiscal Impact: The calculated savings during 2025 based on actual volumes and the actual Tuscarora reservation charge was $34,038. Saving each year has been approximately the same, as the City’s summertime usage is similar each year. This means the three-year benefit of capacity release is approximately $100,000.

Action Requested: Motion to approve Resolution No. 26-6529, authorizing the releasing of Tuscorora natural gas pipeline capacity to IGI Resources (IGI) until April 30, 2029, and further authorizing the City Manager to execute two updated agreements with IGI including the proposed Asset Management Agreement and the consolidated Transaction Agreement.

Attachments:

1. 26-6529

2. IGI - Susanville AMA Addendum for term 5-1-26 through 4-30-29

3. IGI - Susanville AMA TC for term 5-1-26 through 4-30-29pdf

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 26-6529

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUSANVILLE

AUTHORIZING THE RELEASING OF TUSCORORA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CAPACITY TO IGI RESOURCES (IGI) UNTIL APRIL 30, 2029, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE TWO UPDATED AGREEMENTS WITH IGI INCLUDING THE

PROPOSED ASSET MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTION

CONFIRMATION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Susanville has operated a natural gas utility since 2001; and WHEREAS, the City holds Contract No. 370 with Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company for 1,000 DTh/d of firm capacity from Malin, Oregon to the Susanville City Gate, through October 31, 2042; and
WHEREAS, the City does not use all the capacity during summer months and the unused capacity has market value; and
WHEREAS, FERC interstate pipeline rules and regulations allow the release of pipeline capacity from one party to another under prescribed guidelines; and WHEREAS, IGI Resources, Inc. (IGI) has been providing reliable and competitive gas supply and management to the City since the beginning of operations in 2001; and WHEREAS, IGI has currently accepted release of the City’s Tuscarora capacity for the term September 1, 2021, through April 30, 2026, for the mutual benefit of both the City and IGI; and
WHEREAS, IGI has offered to accept release of the capacity for the next three years through April 30, 2029; and
WHEREAS, firm capacity access for the City on Tuscarora is unchanged because of the capacity release; and
WHEREAS, to effectuate ongoing capacity release to IGI, this Resolution approves two agreements extending IGI’s services to April 30, 2029.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Susanville hereby:

1. Finds and determines that the continued release of Tuscarora capacity to IGI benefits natural gas ratepayers; and

2. Approves the Asset Management Agreement allowing the release of the City’s firm capacity on Tuscarora Pipeline for the period May 1, 2026, through April 30, 2029; and

3. Approves the Transaction Confirmation Agreement to specify the structure for gas purchases (exclusive of specific fixed-price transactions), effective May 1, 2026, through April 30, 2029; and

4. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the proposed Asset Management Agreement and the proposed Transaction Confirmation Agreement.

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
APPROVED:_______________________
Mendy Schuster, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Susanville, held on the 15th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Heidi Whitlock, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Margaret Long, City Attorney

ASSET MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
This Asset Management Agreement (the “Addendum”) is made and entered into as of , by and between IGI Resources, Inc. (“IGI”), an Idaho company, and the City of Susanville, a California municipality (“Susanville”). IGI and Susanville are referred to hereinafter individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into an asset management arrangement pursuant to the applicable regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and FERC Order Nos. 712, 712A, and 712B (the “Orders”), under which Susanville will release all of its natural gas interstate transportation capacity under the various agreements with the Pipeline(s) to IGI, and IGI will supply Susanville’s Gas requirements; and WHEREAS, IGI and Susanville are parties to that certain Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas dated May 18, 2009, as the same may have been amended from time to time (such contract with any and all amendments being defined as the “Base Contract” for purposes of this Addendum consistent with the definition set forth therein).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth hereinafter, the sufficiency of such consideration being acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used herein shall have the meanings set forth below. “AMA Transaction” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.2. “Commodity Charge(s)” shall mean all commodity charges, ACA surcharges, GRI surcharges, and other tariff charges that could be assessed by a Pipeline pursuant to the approved tariff or governing documents of such Pipeline as a result of the actual transportation of Gas.
“Demand Charge(s)” shall mean any and all demand/reservation charges assessed by a Pipeline pursuant to the approved tariff of such Pipeline.
“Fuel” means the charge that could be assessed by the Pipeline, whether in-kind or otherwise, for the quantity of Gas consumed by a Pipeline in transporting Gas and includes any provision by such Pipeline for lost and unaccounted for Gas, as determined in accordance with the approved tariff or governing documents of such Pipeline. “Susanville’s Transportation Agreement(s)” means all of the transportation agreements described in Section 3.3 below that have been entered into by and between Susanville and the applicable Pipeline. “Pipeline(s)” means any pipeline(s) on which IGI has acquired the Released Capacity from Susanville under the terms of this Addendum.
“Receipt Point(s)” means the primary receipt point(s) designated in the Transportation Agreements where IGI could receive Gas for transport on the Released Capacity to the Delivery Point(s), as defined in Section 3.3 below. “Released Capacity” means the capacity held by Susanville under Susanville’s Transportation Agreements on the Pipeline that is referenced in Section 3.3 below and is being released by Susanville to IGI under the terms of this Addendum.
“Transportation Agreement(s)” means a contract for transportation service entered into by and between IGI and the Pipeline(s) in order to accommodate the release of the Released Capacity from Susanville to IGI.

ARTICLE II. TERM AND CONDITION PRECEDENT

2.1 Term. Subject to Susanville’s satisfaction of the condition precedent set forth herein in Section 2.2, this Addendum shall be effective from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2029 (the “Term”) unless (i) this Addendum and the AMA Transaction are terminated as a result of an Event of Default under the Contract prior to the end of the Term; (ii) the Parties otherwise mutually agree in writing to terminate this Addendum and the AMA Transaction prior to the end of the Term; or (iii) this Addendum and the AMA Transaction are terminated due to Governmental Requirements. Each Party’s obligations regarding payment and indemnification arising under this Addendum shall survive the termination of this Addendum for a period of time equal to the time for which the applicable statute of limitations applies.

2.2 Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary set forth in this Addendum, this Addendum shall only become effective upon Susanville’s posting and release of the capacity referenced in Section 3.3 in accordance with the Orders to IGI for the Term, which shall be completed within three (3) Business Days of the date the Parties enter into this Addendum. Susanville shall provide Notice to IGI upon the satisfaction of such

2 condition precedent, which notification must be delivered on or prior to the date by which such condition precedent must be satisfied, unless such condition precedent has been unconditionally waived in writing by IGI.

If the condition precedent has not been satisfied or unconditionally waived by IGI in writing, this Addendum and the AMA Transaction shall terminate and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect. If this Addendum and the AMA Transaction are terminated pursuant to this Section 2.2, neither Party shall have any liability to the other Party in respect of any rights or obligations under this Addendum or the AMA Transaction.

2.3 Condition Subsequent. Susanville shall take all actions to rollover the Released Capacity in a timely manner as required under the terms of the applicable Transportation Agreement to ensure that such Released Capacity is available for the full Term. Susanville shall post such capacity for release in accordance with the Orders to IGI for the applicable remaining portion of the Term, and such posting shall be completed within three (3) Business Days of the date such capacity it rolled over under the applicable Transportation Agreement. Susanville shall provide Notice to IGI upon the satisfaction of such condition subsequent, which notification must be delivered on or prior to fifteen (15) Business Days prior to the commencement of the new evergreen period under the applicable Transportation Agreement, unless such condition subsequent has been unconditionally waived in writing by IGI. If the condition subsequent has not been satisfied or unconditionally waived by IGI in writing, this Addendum and the AMA Transaction shall terminate immediately and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect.

ARTICLE III. CAPACITY RELEASE

3.1 Intent of Parties. This Addendum and the AMA Transaction, together with the applicable provisions, if any, of the Pipeline’s FERC approved tariff, as it may be amended from time to time, contain all of the terms and conditions governing Susanville’s release to IGI of the Released Capacity.

3.2 Capacity Release. Susanville will release the Released Capacity for the Term of this Addendum. Susanville acknowledges that the Released Capacity will be adequate to transport Susanville’s Gas requirements for the MDQ referenced in that certain Transaction Confirmation dated (the “AMA Transaction”) on each Day. Susanville will retain the benefits or burdens of any retroactive or forward rate adjustments by the Pipeline(s) affecting the Released Capacity. The Parties shall execute any further documents required to effect the release of transportation service in accordance with this Addendum.

3.3 Release Terms. Susanville shall release, or shall cause to be released, to IGI, the Released Capacity as described below pursuant to the following terms and conditions:

Pipeline: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company
Releasing Shipper Contract No. 370 Releasing Shipper Rate Schedule: FT Maximum Daily Quantity (MDQ): 1,000 MMBtu/Day
Conditions of Recall: Upon the termination of the AMA Transaction, or upon the mutual written agreement of the Parties.

Initial Term of Release: Begin: May 1, 2026 End: April 30, 2029 Condition Subsequent to Term of Release: Susanville to exercise its annual evergreen renewal rights in accordance with Section 2.3 to extend the term of release of the Released Capacity through the end of the Term
Demand Charge(s) (Including Applicable Surcharges): Maximum FT rate Primary Receipt Points: TUSCARORA/GTN INTERCONNECT
Primary Delivery Points: SUSANVILLE

3.4 Contract with the Pipeline(s). IGI shall execute a transportation agreement(s) for the Released Capacity with the Pipeline(s) to satisfy the Pipeline(s) requirements, in addition to taking any and all other actions required by the Pipeline(s) to take the Released Capacity. If IGI is unable or unwilling to execute the transportation agreement(s) with the Pipeline(s), the AMA Transaction and this Addendum shall terminate with no further performance obligation (save and except for payments due and owing as a result of past performance) being owed by either Party. Unless otherwise provided for under the AMA Transaction, upon execution of the Transportation Agreement(s), IGI shall be responsible for all Commodity Charges and Fuel pertaining to the Released Capacity that are owed to the Pipeline until the earliest to occur of the (i) expiration of the Term, or (ii) any of the conditions set forth in (i)-(iii) in Section 2.1 of this Addendum.

3.5 Receipt and Delivery Points. The Pipeline(s)’s tariff may permit IGI to change primary receipt and delivery points under the Transportation Agreements. Notwithstanding any tariff provisions permitting such a change, IGI shall not change primary receipt or delivery points under the Transportation Agreements without the prior written consent of Susanville.