Agenda packet — Victorville City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 9 of 11)

HCD is committed to assisting Victorville in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law and appreciates your efforts as well as consultants Irlanda Martinez, Hitta Mosesman and Dima Galkin provided in the preparation of your draft element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Gerlinde Bernd at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief

Enclosure
1245
1461

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 1 September 17, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF VICTORVILLE

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)

Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)

Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): The element includes some basic information regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households such as the number of households and projected housing needs. However, given the unique and disproportionate needs of ELI households, the element must include analysis to better formulate policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze tenure, cost burden, overcrowding and other household characteristics then examine the availability of resources to determine gaps in housing needs. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing- needs/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

Housing Conditions: The element identifies the age of the housing stock. However, it must include an estimate and analysis of the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include utilize information from the recent survey, estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from other organizations. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/housing-needs/housing-stock-characteristics.shtml.

2. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing (AFFH) in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

1246
1462

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 2 September 17, 2021
Assessment of Fair Housing: While the element includes some maps and reporting of data on various components of the assessment of fair housing, it must also include analysis such as trends and characteristics.

Local Data and Knowledge: The element should incorporate local data and knowledge of the jurisdiction into the AFFH section. To assist in meeting this requirement, the element should provide local data not captured in regional, state, or federal data analysis.

Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since July 1, 2021. The element indicates (p. 8-4) 63 units affordable to low-income households toward the RHNA but must also demonstrate the affordability of the units. Specifically, the element must assign these units based on actual or anticipated sales price or rent level of the units or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed-restrictions).

Realistic Capacity: The element (p. 8-6) mentions an assumption of 75 to 100 percent of maximum allowable densities to calculate residential capacity on identified sites based on an overview of proposed development densities. However, the element should include additional and clear supporting information on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. For example, the element could clearly list other recent projects, the zone, acreage, built density, allowable density, level of affordability and presence of exceptions such as a density bonus.

Infrastructure: The element generally describes infrastructure and forecasts (p. 4-83) in the City. However, it must also demonstrate sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the regional housing need in the planning period.
1247
1463

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 3 September 17, 2021

Replacement Housing Requirements: If the sites inventory identifies sites with existing residential uses, it must identify whether the current residential uses are affordable to lower-income households or describe whether the additional residential development on the site requires the demolition of the existing residential use. For nonvacant sites with existing, vacated, or demolished residential uses and occupied by, or subject to an affordability requirement for, lower-income households within the last five years there must be a replacement housing program for units affordable to lower-income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3)). Absent a replacement housing program, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households.

The replacement housing program has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3). The housing element must be revised to include such analysis and a program, if necessary.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element should clarify emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary action and describe the development standards of the Neighborhood Service (C-1) zone. In addition, the element should describe proximity to services in addition to transportation, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land-use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land-use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land-use controls independently and cumulatively with other land-use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to multifamily parking and heights. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element states most development is subject to the Site Plan Review and includes information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public 1248
1464

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 4 September 17, 2021
hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty. For example, the element should identify and analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty and any approaches to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate.

Group Homes: The element appears to indicate group homes for six or fewer persons are only allowed unless licensed by the state. If necessary, the element should evaluate this requirement as a potential constraint and add or modify programs as appropriate. In addition, group homes for seven or more persons appears to be excluded from several zones allowing residential uses and subject to a conditional use permit. The element should evaluate these requirements as constraints and modify Program PP-I.1 as appropriate.

Building Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe and analyze any local amendments to the building code and their enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building- blocks/constraints/codes-and-enforcement-on-offsite-improvement-standards.shtml.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must clarify whether there are written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and add a program to address these requirements if necessary.

Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees on the City’s website or add or modify programs.

Water Sewer Priority: Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should discuss compliance with these requirements and if necessary, add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/other- requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml.

B. H ousing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing 1249
1465

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 5 September 17, 2021
and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)

To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines and specific commitment.

Programs to be revised with discrete timelines include PP-B.1 (Assist with Development), PP-D.3 (Support Non-profits), PP-D.4 (Assist with Extremely Low- income), PP-F.1 (Advertise Resources), PP-F.2 (Monitor Grant Opportunities), PP-G.1 (Publish Resources) and PP-O.2 (Safe Housing Conditions). Programs to be revised with specific commitment include PP-A.1 (Update the Land Use Element), PP-B.4 (Menu of Incentives), PP-C.3 (Encourage Accessory Dwelling Units), PP-D.4 (Assist with Extremely Low-income), PP-H.3 (Update the Land Use Element) and HE-J.1 (Rent Stabilization Ordinance).

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition:

• Rezoning: The element identifies a shortfall of sites to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation for lower-income households. As a result, programs to rezone sites must also comply with all by-right provisions pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). • Replacement Housing Requirements: If necessary, the housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).
• Large Sites: The element identifies several large sites and also describes a program was present in the past planning period (p. 5-3) but, given the importance of this program, should also closely evaluate the effectiveness of that program and revise programs PP-A.5 and PP-B.1 as appropriate.

1250
1466

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 6 September 17, 2021

3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

Special Needs Households: The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for special needs households, specifically, persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.

The program(s) could commit the City to proactively reaching out to developers of affordable housing, adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to special needs households; assisting, supporting or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers.

State Density Bonus Law: As noted on page 3-23, Program PP-A.2 (Menu of Density Bonuses) should be revised with specific commitment to adopt a density bonus ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65915.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

As noted in Findings A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

5. P romote AFFH opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Depending on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or revise programs as appropriate.

C. Public Participation

Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)

While the element describes community meetings and a comprehensive survey, moving forward, the City should employ additional methods for public outreach efforts, particularly 1251
1467

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 7 September 17, 2021
specific to the housing element and including lower-income and special needs households and neighborhoods with higher concentrations of lower-income households. For example, the City could conduct targeted stakeholder interviews or establish a committee representative of lower-income households in future public outreach efforts. In addition, the element should also summarize public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element.

Finally, the element does not clearly describe the availability of the draft housing element to the public prior to submittal to HCD. For your information, by not providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission, the City will not have yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. If applicable, the City must proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.

D. General Plan Consistency

The housing element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
A

TTACHMENT D
1253
1469
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

September 17, 2021

Scott Webb, City Planner
Development Department
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA 92393-5001

Dear Scott Webb:

RE: Review of City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element

Thank you for submitting City of Victorville’s (City) draft housing element received for review on July 20, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Inland Equity Partnership pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of October 15, 2021 for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e), paragraph (4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit HCD’s website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
1254
1470
Scott Webb, City Planner

Page 2 ends

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief

Enclosure
1255
1471

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 1 September 17, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF VICTORVILLE

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1256
1472

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 3 September 17, 2021

B. H ousing Programs

Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)

To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines and specific commitment.

1260
1476

HCD Review of the City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 6 September 17, 2021

As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Depending on a complete analysis, the element may need to add or revise programs as appropriate.

C. Public Participation

While the element describes community meetings and a comprehensive survey, moving forward, the City should employ additional methods for public outreach efforts, particularly 1261
1477

D. General Plan Consistency

The housing element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)

While the element describes that it was prepared in a manner to ensure internal consistency, it should also describe how internal consistency will be maintained throughout the planning period.
1262
1478
Matrix of Edits Made In Response to HCD's September 17, 2021 Review Letter Housing Element Chapter Summary of Edits Made
Letter
Annotation
Note #
#1 - Introduction Additional description on General Plan consistency. 23 Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI): Provide a stand alone section with additional analysis. 1
Housing Conditions: More information on housing conditions. 2 Clarify that emergency shelters are permitted without discretionary action/describe Neighborhood Service (C-1) zone development standards. 11 Describe proximity to services in addition to transportation, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. 11
Identify land use constraints related to multifamily parking and heights. 12 Describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development, including approval bodies. 13
Identify constraints to Group Homes and add a program to remove constraints. 14 Describe and analyze any amendments to the building code and their enforcement for impacts on housing supply and affordability. 15
Clarify if written procedures for SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process have been completed and add a program. 16
State whether zoning, development standards and fees are available on the City’s website 17 Provide anticipated rents or sales prices for 63 units of planned affordable to low-income households identified. 7
Provide more historical information on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments. 8
State that licensed utility engineer deemed sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate housing need. 9
Identify replacement housing requirement for sites with existing residential uses with information on those uses. 10
Provide more precise timelines and commitments for the following programs:

PP-B.1 (Assist with Development), PP-D.3 (Support Non-profits), PP-D.4 (Assist with Extremely Low- income), PP-F.1 (Advertise Resources), PP-F.2 (Monitor Grant Opportunities), PP-G.1 (Publish Resources) and PP-O.2 (Safe Housing Conditions). Programs to be revised with specific commitment include PP-A.1 (Update the Land Use Element), PP-B.4 (Menu of Incentives), PP-C.3 (Encourage Accessory Dwelling Units), PP-D.4 (Assist with Extremely Low- income), PP-H.3 (Update the Land Use Element) and HE-J.1 (Rent Stabilization Ordinance). 18 Specify that rezoning must comply with State laws dictating by-right provisions. 19 Evaluate the effectiveness of the Large Sites program and revise related programs. 19 Add a Replacement Housing Program for sites with existing units that may be redeveloped. 19 Add specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for special needs households. 20
Add a program committing to adopt a density bonus ordinance pursuant to State law requirements. 21
Appendix A - Public Engagement Continue to receive comment and make Housing Element Available to the public. 22 Describe local trends and characteristics not captured in regional, state or federal data. 3 Provide local history, historical land use and investment practices and revitalization efforts (redevelopment prior to 2011 and new Community Revitalization Investment Area formation). 4 & 5 Goals, priorities and milestones to specifically address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices, place-based community preservation and revitalization. 6 #2 - Community Profile
#5 – Constraints
# 7 – Site Inventory
#8 - Housing Programs
Appendix B - Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
1263
1479

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
A

TTACHMENT E
1264
1480
1265
1481
FINAL
Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing
Element Update
PLAN21-00030
November 2021
Prepared for:

City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, California 92392
(760) 955-5135
Contact: Michael Szarzynski, Senior Planner

Prepared by:

600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-1778
Contact: Kristin Blackson, PMP, Project Manager

1266
1482

This page intentionally left blank.
1267
1483
IS/ND i November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... iii Document Overview ................................................................................................................... v Section 1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................ 2

1.4 Housing Sites Inventory ................................................................................... 3

1.5 Housing Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs ....................................... 4

1.6 Scope of Environmental Review ...................................................................... 4 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist .......................................................................................... 11

2.1 Project Information ........................................................................................ 11

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................... 13

2.3 Lead Agency Determination .......................................................................... 14

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 15

2.4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................. 16

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................ 19

2.4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 22

2.4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 25

2.4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 29

2.4.6 Energy ...................................................................................................... 33

2.4.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 35

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 40

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... 43

2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 49

2.4.11 Land Use and Planning............................................................................ 54

2.4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................... 56

2.4.13 Noise ........................................................................................................ 57

2.4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................... 60

2.4.15 Public Services ......................................................................................... 62

2.4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................ 65

2.4.17 Transportation .......................................................................................... 66

2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 69

2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 71

2.4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................... 74

2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................... 76

1268
1484
IS/ND ii November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Section 3 List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 79

3.1 Lead Agency .................................................................................................. 79

3.2 Consultants .................................................................................................... 79 Section 4 References ............................................................................................................ 81 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location .......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Project Location ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3. Inventory Sites ............................................................................................................... 9 Tables
Table 1. Victorville 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation by Household Income (2021–2029) ......................................................................................................... 3

1269
1485

IS/ND iii November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
BMP best management practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
City or Victorville City of Victorville
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dB decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
HCD Housing and Community Development
HEU or project City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update IS Initial Study
MDAQMD Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
N2O nitrous oxide
ND Negative Declaration
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services
PM10 5.3-micron diameter particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCLA Southern California Logistics Airport
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VWD Victorville Water District

1270
1486

IS/ND iv November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1271
1487

IS/ND v November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Document Overview
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed City of Victorville Housing Element Update (project or HEU). The primary intent of this document is to (1) determine whether project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and (2) incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to eliminate or reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

In accordance with CEQA, projects that h ave the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must undergo analysis to disclose potential significant effects. The provisions of CEQA apply to California governmental agencies at all levels, including local agencies, regional agencies, state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts. CEQA requires preparation of an IS for a discretionary project to determine the range of potential environmental impacts of that project and to define the scope of the environment review document. As specified in Section 15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an Mitigated Negative Declaration if, in the course of the IS analysis, it is recognized that the project may have a significant impact on the environment but that implementation of specific mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. As th e lead agency for the proposed p roject, the City of Victorville (City or Victorville ) has the principal responsibility for conducting the CEQA environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with project implementation. During the review process, it was determined that potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, an IS/ND has been prepared for the proposed project.

Note: The project has not been approved or denied. It is being reviewed for environmental impacts only. Approval of the project can take place only after the ND has been adopted.

This IS/ND is organized as follows:
 Section 1: Project Description. This section introduces the document and discusses the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.  Section 2 : Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts.  Section 3: List of Preparers. This section lists the organizations and individuals who were consulted and/or prepared this IS/ND.
 Section 4 : References. This section presents a list of reference materials consulted during preparation of this IS/ND.
1272
1488

IS/ND vi November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Public Review
The IS/ND will be circ ulated for a 30 -day public review period from September 17, 2021 , to October 18, 2021.

Comments regarding this IS/ND must be made in writing and submitted to Michael Szarzynski, City of Victorville , Development Department , 14343 Civic Drive , PO Box 5001 , Victorville, California 92392, or by email to [email protected].

Comments should focus on the proposed finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment . If th e commenter believes that the project may have a significant environmental effect, it would be helpful for the commenter to identify the specific effect and explain why the effect would occur and why it would be significant.

1273
1489

IS/ND 1 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Section 1 Project Description

1.1 Location
The City of Victorville (City) is in southwestern San Bernardino County, in the geographic subregion of the southwestern Mojave Desert known as the Victor Valley and commonly referred to as the “High Desert” due to its approximate elevation of 2,900 feet above sea level. The Victor Valley is separated from other urbanized areas in Southern California by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. The City ’s regional location is shown on Figure 1, Regional L ocation.

Although the City is separated from larger urbanized areas of Southern California, it is easily accessible via Interstate 15, U.S. Route 395, State Route 18, and Historic U.S. Route 66 (see Figure 2, Project Location).

1.2 Project Overview
The project proposes to update the City’s Housing Element for the 6th Cycle planning period from October 15, 2021, to October 15, 2029. The Housing Element is a component of the Victorville General Plan 2030 that assesses the housing needs of all economic segments of the City, defines the goals and policies that would guide the City ’s approach to resolving those needs, and recommends a set of programs that would implement policies over the next few years (City of Victorville 2008a). State law requires that all cities adopt a Housing Element and update it every 8 years. The previous 5th Cycle (2013 –2021) Housing Element was adopted by Victorville City Council in June 2013 and was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65583, a Housing Element is required to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Specifically, a Housing Element is required to contain the following:
 An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs (California Government Code, Section 65583[a]);  A statement of the community ’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing ( California Government Code, Section 65583[a]); and
 A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation of the policies to achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element (California Government Code, Section 65583[c]).

The Housing Element, as part of the Victorville General Plan 2030, establishes housing -related actionable programs that are intended to guide City decision -making related to land use planning 1274
1490

IS/ND 2 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
and development activities for the 2021–2029 planning period in accordance with the City’s stated housing goals and state law. The Housing Element includes strategies for maintenance of existing housing and action -oriented programs to increase the capacity for additional housing options within the local housing supply as necessary to meet the current and future needs of people living and working in Victorville. Implementation of these strategies will require that the City process a series of future actions, referred to as the Housing Element implementation program, for compliance with California housing law. Meeting the community’s housing needs is a high priority for the City. As widely reported throughout the state, California is in the midst of a housing crisis where demand greatly outweighs supply.

The Housing Element Update (HEU) would consist of the following major components:
 Chapter 1: Introduction
 Chapter 2: Community Profile
 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints
 Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Opportunities
 Chapter 5: Review of Previous Housing Element (2013–2021)  Chapter 6: At-Risk Affordable Housing
 Chapter 7: Housing Plan
 Chapter 8: Adequate Sites Inventory Analysis and Methodology

1.3 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
State Housing Element law requires housing elements to be updated regularly to reflect a community’s changing housing needs, including preparation of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plan (California Government Code, Section 65584[a]). A critical measure of compliance is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the regional ho using needs based on a n RHNA prepared by the HCD for each council of governments in the state that identifies projected housing units needed for all economic segments based on California Department of Finance population estimates.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the council of governments for the Southern California region and allocates to the six counties and 191 cities their fair share of the total RHNA for each income category. Each local government m ust demonstrate that it has planned to accommodate its fair share of the RHNA in its Housing Element. The SCAG Board of Directors adopted the RHNA Plan on March 4, 2021. The state requires that 6th Cycle Housing Elements be certified 18 months after that date.

SCAG developed an RHNA based on the HCD determination for the region ’s “fair share ” of statewide forecasted growth through October 2029. Overall, the region needs to plan for an additional 1,341,827 units. The City ’s share of regional future housing n eeds is 8,165 new units.

The RHNA was distributed to jurisdictions in the region using a formula that accounts for access 1275
1491

IS/ND 3 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
to public transit and employment. This allocation is divided into the various income categories in Table 1, Victorville 6th Cycle Regi onal Housing Needs Assessment Allocation by Household Income (2021–2029). The RHNA also includes a fair -share adjustment, which allocates future need by each income category in a way that meets the state mandate to reduce the overconcentration of households with lower incomes in one community.

Table 1. Victorville 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation by Household Income (2021–2029)
Income Category Above Moderate Moderate Low Very Low Total Dwelling Units 3,790 1,504 1,136 1,735 8,165
Source: SCAG and Connect SoCal 2021.

1.4 Housing Sites Inventory
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction ’s share of the RHNA . A jurisdiction may meet the RHNA requirement using potential development on suitable vacant and/or nonvacant sites within the community. A jurisdiction must document how zoning and development standards on the proposed sites facilitate housing to accommodate the remaining RHNA requirement.

The HEU would include the Citywide Housing Sites Inventory, which identifies all properties with the potential for residential development (see Figure 3 , Inventory Sites ). No formal land use changes or physical development s are proposed at this time , and the HEU would not identify or approve any specific development projects.

Through its Housing Sites Inventory, the City identified 158 sites that are adequate for development of housing and that have zoned housing capacity that is reasonably developab le within the planning period or will have such capacity with planned zoning and land use changes.

These sites have capacity for at least 15,314 net housing units under the sites ’ existing zoning (or with a proposed zone change in certain circumstances), n et of existing residential units on these sites. A subset of these sites meet s the suitability criteria for sites adequate for lower -income (extremely low -, very -low-, and low -income) housing established by California Government Code, Section 65583.2. Out of the total 158 sites adequate for housing development, 51 sites meet the lower-income suitability criteria. These sites have zoned capacity for at least 4,788 net potential lower-income housing units, with some sites including moderate -income and above-moderate- income units as part of mixed-income development. All sites have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities infrastructure available and accessible to support housing development. The Housing Sites Inventory includes more sites than necessary for the City’s allocated share of the RHNA, as there is currently significant developable vacant land within the City’s boundaries.

This capacity is largely available on vacant sites under current land use plan s and zoning regulations. Vacant sites currently zoned for residential uses or planned for rezoning to allow residential uses total 148 and facilitate the development of 14,673 future housing units and the 1276
1492

IS/ND 4 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
remaining 10 sites listed in the Housing Sites Inventory are not vacant. To encourage housing development in accordance with principles of sustainable communities and affirmatively furthering fair housing, the City has identified zoning and land use changes to permit higher - density housing in resource-advantaged areas. All sites that the City plans to rezone are vacant.

1.5 Housing Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs
California Government Code, Section 65583(c), requires a program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. The goals, policies, and programs have been established to address the housing issues in the City and to meet state housing law requirements. The City’s overall objective is to ensure that decent, safe housing is available to current and future Victorville residents of all income levels.

As required by state Housing Element la w, the proposed HEU includes a p lan to facilitate and encourage the provision of housing consistent with the RHNA. The plan would implement strategies and programs intended to address a number of important housing -related issues and to achieve the City’s overarching housing goals, which include the following:
 Encourage development of different housing types to meet the City’s different needs  Maximize land utilization for residential development  Preserve existing housing stock
 Provide more affordable housing
 Maximize solutions for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness  Encourage homeownership
 Improve quality of life and promote placemaking
 Affirmatively further fair housing

1.6 Scope of Environmental Review
The HEU would require environmental review in compliance with CEQA. The HEU would be a policy-level document that would not create physical residential growth but would only identify available sites for residential development during the 2021 –2029 planning period. To implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element, including the recommended rezoning s, the City has initiated a comprehensive General Plan Update and associated Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Because the HEU would be a policy -level document that would not create physical residential growth and the recommended rezonings would not occur as part of th e project, the City has determined that an ND is the appropriate CEQA document for the HEU.

1277
1493
Date: 6/28/2021 - Last saved by: Noah.Stoop - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\HousingElement\MapDocs\IS_MND\Figur e1_Regional.mxd Los Angeles County
Orange County
Kern County
San Be
rnardino County
Los Angeles County
San Bernardino Count
y
California
City
Barstow
Adelanto
Victorville
Apple Valley
Hesperia
Lake
Arrowhead
Big
Bear Lake
Crestline
Running
Springs
Lake Los
Angeles
£¤395
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ247
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ259
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ189
ÄÆ142
ÄÆ206
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ83
ÄÆ330
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ173
ÄÆ14
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ58
ÄÆ247
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ38
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ138
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
§¨¦5
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦40
§¨¦15
Victorville Housing Element Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
Incorporated Areas
Regional Location
Source: ESRI 2020.

Figure 1
±
01 05
Miles
1278
1494

IS/ND 6 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1279
1495
Date: 6/28/2021 - Last saved by: Noah.Stoop - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\HousingElement\MapDocs\IS_MND\Figur e2_ProjectLocation.mxd Southern California
Logistics Airport
Adelanto
Victorville Apple Valley
Mountain
View Acres
Hesperia
£¤395
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ173
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ18
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Victorville Housing Element Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
City of Adelanto
City of Apple Valley
City of Hesperia
City of Mountain View
Project Location
Source: ESRI 2020.

Figure 2
±
02 1
Miles
1280
1496

IS/ND 8 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1281
1497
43 58
18 44
29 96
9293
101
9897
10099
9194
47 45
33 13
46 9
10 11
7 8
72 124
123
121
111126
125
109
110
122
108
53 54
106
38 107
42 28
15 105
25 119
120
118
49 83
71 90
20 14
89 88
84 85
86 87
50 127133
132
128131
130129
21 51
104
26 17
19 102
103
11475
113 112
76 82
78 81
8079
77 16
23 5224
30 35
37 55
27 4
60 6
12 1
63 2
35 66 68
67 65
31 32
115116
117
61 74
40 64
73 62
39 69
41 36
34 Adelanto
Victorville
Apple
Valley
Hesperia
Mountain View
£[395
ÄÆ18
§¨¦15
To p a z A
ve
El E
va
do Rd
Amethyst Rd
National Tra
ils Hwy
Nisqualli
Rd
Amar
gosa Rd
Hook Blvd 7th
St
Seneca Rd
Hopland St
Hes
peria
Rd
Rancho Rd
Ame
thyst St 7th Ave
Mojave Dr
Bellfl
ow
er St
Main St
Bellflowe
r Ave
Air Base Rd
Phelan Rd
To p a z
Rd
Eucalyptus St
Mojave St
Bear Valley Rd
El Dorado St
City of Victorville
Inventory Sites
Lower Income
Moderate+ Income
Mixed Income
Date: 6/28/2021 - Last saved by: Noah.Stoop - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\HousingElement\MapDocs\IS_MND\Figur e3_InventorySitesOverview.mxd Source: ESRI 2021.
±
02 1
Miles
Source: ESRI 2021.

Inventory Sites
Victorville Housing Element Update
±
02 1
Miles
Update Victorville Housing Element
Inventory Sites
Source: ESRI 2021.

Figure 3
1282
1498

IS/ND 10 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1283
1499

IS/ND 11 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Section 2 Initial Study Checklist
The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.

2.1 Project Information

1. Project title: City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Victorville
Development Department
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, California 92392

3. Contact person name, address, and
phone number:

Michael Szarzynski
City of Victorville, Development Department
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, California 92392
(760) 955-5135/[email protected]

4. Project location: City of Victorville and sphere of influence 5 Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Victorville, Development Department 14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, California 92392

6. General plan designation: Citywide – varies

7. Zoning: Citywide – varies

8. Description of project: Refer to Section 1, Project Description, of this IS/ND.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Refer to Section 1 of this IS/ND. 1284
1500

IS/ND 12 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:

State law requires jurisdictions to submit a Draft
Housing Element to the HCD for review and that
each jurisdiction consider the HCD’s comments
before Housing Element adoption. Review of
specific development proposals by other
governmental agencies may be required before
development of new housing anticipated in the
Housing Element. Appropriate public agency
review wil l be determined at the time specific
development applications are submitted.

11. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for
example, the determination of
significance of impacts to Tribal
Cultural Resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Consultation has been initiated per Assembly Bill
(AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. Refer to Section

2.4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS/ND
for details.

1285
1501

IS/ND 13 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by th e project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☐ Land Use and
Planning
☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and
Housing
☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory
Findings
of Significance

1286
1502

IS/ND 14 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.3 Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☒ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent (state), including implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Michael Szarzynski, Senior Planner, City of Victorville

1287
1503

IS/ND 15 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This section documents the screening process used to identify and focus on environmental impacts that could result from th e project. The checklist portion of the IS begins below and includes explanations of each CEQA issue topic. CEQA requires that an explanation of all answers be provided along with this checklist, including a discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. The following terminology is used to describe the potential level of significance of impacts:
 No Impact. The analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular resource in any way.
 Less Than Significant. The analysis concludes that the project would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment without the incorporation of mitigation.  Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation agreed upon by the applicant.
 Potentially Significant. The analysis concludes that the project could result a substantial adverse e ffect or significant effect on the environment , even if mitigation is incorporated. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

1288
1504

IS/ND 16 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.1 Aesthetics

Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Environmental Setting
The City is primarily on the broad surface of a large alluvial fan referred to as the Cajon Fan (or Victorville Fan). Areas of high visual sensitivity in or adjacent to the City include the Mojave River, the rocky bluffs of the Mojave Narrows, and the Mojave Narrows Regional Park.

The Mojave River runs along the fan’s eastern margin and is the City’s most notable topographic feature. The Mojave River crosses the City from the southeast to the northwest, conveying runoff out of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. The river is a perennial desert river containing a variety of vegetation and irregular rocky bluffs and terraces in some areas. The river channel is heavily wooded in the northern portion, while grasses and smaller trees dominate the floodplain areas.

At Mojave Narrows, the terrain becomes steep and predominately rocky, and the river encounters an impenetrable layer of bedrock that forces water to the surface even during dry periods. The Mojave Narrows is a unique topographical and visual point of interest that separates Victorville from the Town of Apple Valley to the east.

Mojave Narrows Regional Park, on the City ’s southeastern border, supports extensive native riparian woodlands dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), black willow (Salix nigra), and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). Other native tree species found locally include 1289
1505

IS/ND 17 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
sandbar willow (Salix exigua), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Desert willow (Chilopsis linearis) grows along the river’s drier ephemeral reaches.

Another notable feature of the area is the Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), which can grow to 12 meters tall. These trees are distributed on gentle slopes and valley floors of upper bajadas and sandy areas. The trees are also protected by the state as candidate for listing as threatened species.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The Victorville General Plan 2030 does not designate scenic vistas in the City. However, the City does contain areas of high visual sensitivity, including the Mojave River, the rocky bluffs of the Mojave Narrows, and the Mojave Narrows Regional Park.

Development in the City has the potential to impact these areas of high visual sensitivity.

Development within a viewer’s line of sight of scenic areas may interfere with a scenic resource, either by physically blocking or screening the vista from view or by impeding or blocking access to a formerly available viewing position. Those viewers may see the sce nic areas before development but would have those views blocked after development.

The HEU would include an inventory of sites with the potential to accommodate the housing needs of the City . H owever, the HEU does not propose the dev elopment of housing or associated infrastructure. The HEU would identify potential housing areas to demonstrate compliance with the HCD’s RHNA. Future new residential development pursuant to the HEU would be subject to existing development standards in the Victorville Development Code and CEQA. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Land Use Element includes a goal to beautify the City to provide for an aesthetically pleasing community. Specifically , Land Use Element Policy 4.1.1 addresses promoting high-quality development in the City by continually monitor ing and upgrad ing the design guidelines for all types of development. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas.
b. Would the project s ubstantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. No existing or proposed state scenic highways are in the City. Consequently, future development facilitated by the HEU would have no potential to adversely affect, directly and indirectly, scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway. Implementation of the HEU would not im pact scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

1290
1506

IS/ND 18 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
c. Would the project, in non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would include an inventory of sites with the potential to accommodate the housing needs of the City. However, the HEU would not propose the development of housing or associated infrastructure. The HEU would identify potential housing areas to demonstrate compliance with the HCD’s RHNA. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be consistent with current land use designations in the City, which would allow for the development of residential units.

The Victorville General Plan 2030 Land Use Element includes a goal to beautify the City to provide for an aesthetically pleasing community. The goal is supported by Land Use Element Policy 4.1.1, which includes several implementation measures designed to promote high-quality development within the City, including continually monitoring and upgrading the design guidelines for all types of development and using Specific Plan and/or redevelopment project sites in areas deemed appropriate for design themes. In addition, the Victorville Development Code also includes several articles designed to regulate scenic quality in the City. Future residential development consistent with the HEU would be required to comply with these policies and, therefore, would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations designed to protect scenic quality. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact . The HEU would not propose specific residential de velopment.

However, development of new residential units facilitated by the HEU would result in new sources of light and glare but would be consistent with the ambient light levels from nearby sources. In addition, residential development projects are subject to the Victorville Development Code, which includes operational and development standards that would reduce light or glare impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

1291
1507

IS/ND 19 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided. Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the majority of the City as Urban (not Important Farmland) (DOC 2021). Several areas of the City are designated as Prime Farmland, scattered along and adjacent to the Mojave River corridor in the vicinity of State Route 18. No Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance occur in the City. According to the existing San Bernardino County Office of the Assessor, Victorville District Office, the 148 -acre Kemper-Campbell Ranch site is the only property under a Williamson Act contract (City of Victorville 2008a). 1292
1508

IS/ND 20 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project c onvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be in areas with limited classified Farmland and would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development . The HEU is consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 because it does not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization or rezoning from agricultural use to residential use. Consequently , future housing development would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance , and Grazing to non -agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project c onflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the existing San Bernardino County Office of the Assessor, Victorville District Office, the 148 -acre Kemper -Campbell Ranch site is the only property under a Williamson Act contract (City of Victorville 2008a). The HEU does not propose any future development or land use change that would restrict current agricultural uses on this property. Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. No state forests or lands currently used for timber production or management are in the Planning Area. Additionally, no zoning designation for timberland or forest resources is within the Planning Area . Therefore, future residential development facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would allow for r esidential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development and do not exist in areas of potential forest resources. Consequently, the HEU would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. 1293
1509

IS/ND 21 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. However, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be in areas with limited classified Farmland and would allow for residential development on vacant and developed sites that are zoned for residential development consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 because the HEU would not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization or rezoning from agricultural use to residential use. The HEU would not result in a zoning change for existing agricultural properties and would not restrict current agricultural uses on these prop erties. Adoption of the HEU would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Impacts would be less than significant.

1294
1510

IS/ND 22 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.3 Air Quality

Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City is part of the Mojave Desert Air Basin. Hot summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes , and generally fair weather characterize the climate of the Victor Valley an interior sub-climate of Southern California’s Mediterranean climate. The clouds and fog that form along the Southern California coastline rarely extend across the mountains to Victorville.

The most important local weather pattern is associated with the funneling of the daily onshore sea breeze through Cajon Pass into the upper desert to the northeast of the heavily developed portions of the Los Angeles Basin. This daily airflow brings polluted air into the area late in the afternoon from late spring to early fall. This transport pattern both creates unhealthful air quality and destroys the scenic vistas of the mountains surrounding the Victor Valley.

The most representative air monitoring station is the Victorville Station located at 14306 Park Avenue. Ozone (O3), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (N2O), 5.3-micron diameter particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are monitored at the Victorville facility (City of Victorville 2008a).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. Instead, the HEU would identify action programs that could be implemented to provide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with state housing law. Further, the City is not required to build dwelling units to meet its RHNA allocation requirements ; it is only required to identify potential sites and to create the framework to allow the market the opportunity to develop these units. The RHNA allocation for the City is a total of 8,165 units, which was allocated based 1295
1511

IS/ND 23 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
on SCAG population and growth forecas ts. For any specific future residential projects, Mojave Desert Air Basin consistency would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed and mitigation measures applied as necessary in conformance with CEQA. Therefore, the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)?
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the HEU would neither propose any changes to land uses nor identify or approve any specific development projects. All future development facilitated as a result of the HEU would require project -specific environmental evaluation to determine if any potential impacts are less th an significant. Potential air quality - related impacts would be location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the location of a project site is known. When a development proposal is considered, the project would be subject to adopted de velopment guidelines/standards, and any impacts identified with the development project would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact.

Future projects would be subject to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) air quality thresholds and would be required to comply with the MDAQMD CEQA Handbook. Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction of the sites, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas - and diesel -powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of constru ction workers, would be subject to the MDAQMD rule for fugitive dust control requirements for construction projects and the rules and regulations in the MDAQMD R ule Book. In addition, the MDAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the federal Conformity Guidelines identif y project types for sites within the specified distance of existing or planned sensitive receptor land uses that must be evaluated using the MDAQMD ’s health risk significance thresholds, with which future projects would be required to comply. In addition, the HEU would contain policies that would limit air emissions in new development, including promoting infill development (HE-C.1) and encouraging development that includes active transportation infrastructure , such as new and wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes (HE-M.3). Therefore, impacts related to cumulative increases in criter ia pollutants and sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the mo st obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be a nuisance to the general public.
1296
1512

IS/ND 24 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
The HEU would not propose development. However, construction associated with future residential development facilitated by the HEU could result in minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. Construction would not take place all at once and would occur at various locations throughout the City. Any operations near existing receptors would be temporary; therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.

Residential land uses do not typically result in a source of nuisance odors. Because the project involves policy planning for residential uses, it does not involve development of uses associated with odors, and operational impacts would be less than significant.

1297
1513

IS/ND 25 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.4 Biological Resources

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with any applicable policies protecting
biological resources?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 , the City limits contain the following plant communities: Mojave creosote bush scrub, desert saltbush scrub, rabbitbush scrub, Mojavean juniper woodland and scrub, ruderal (disturbed) communities, Joshua tree woodland, and riparian communities associated with the Mojave River and its floodplain, including transmontane alkali and freshwater marsh, Mojave riparian forest, and southern willow scrub (City of Victorville 2008a).

The Mojave River flows from the San Bernardino Mountains north to Barstow, then east to Soda Lake and the Mojave National Preserve. Mojave Narrows Regional Park is southeast of the Planning Area and is a virtual oasis in the Mojave Desert.

The Victorville Planning Area contains numerous wildlife species considered threatened or endangered as listed by either or both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildl ife Service (USFWS) . This includes the arroyo toad (Anaxyrus 1298
1514

IS/ND 26 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
californicus), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis ), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus ), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sens itive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. Several plant and wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species have been documented in the City. The most common species requiring mitigation in the City are burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Mohave ground squirrel, and desert tortoise.

Implementation of the HEU may have the potential to result in the removal of habitats that support sensitive plant species; however, specific development projects are unknown at this time. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adve rse impacts to sensitive plant species . The Victorville General Plan 2030 includes policies designed to promote the preservation of natural communities that support rare, threatened , and/or endangered plants and wildlife species. Specifically, Resource Element Implementation Measure

4.1.1.2 addresses the requirement for biological surveys for undeveloped properties expected to contain biological resources, coordination with the CDFW and USFWS in the preparation of biological surveys and assessments, and keeping the City’s database of sensitive habitats current.

In addition, Resource Element Policy 4.2.1 generally prohibit s private or public development projects or major infrastructure facilities on land within the Mojave River corridor, where biological surv eys have determined there is habitat that supports rare, threatened , and/or endangered plants or wildlife. Conservation of the Mojave River and its floodplain may avoid direct impacts of occupied habitat and avoid take or harm of individual species as defi ned by federal and state agencies.

Separate from the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element, the City, through its CEQA compliance program, requires that new development projects in undeveloped areas prepare an assessment of biological habitat and potential impacts to listed or sensitive species. The City, with concurrence from the USFWS, designated an area within the urbanized part of the community where surveys to detect desert tortoise are not required based on past negative survey results and th e characteristics of the land and nearby improvements that have eliminated desert tortoise habitat or represent significant barriers to desert tortoise movement and sustainability. A map of this no-survey area is maintained at the Victorville Planning Division. Future projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect special-status wildlife species. Therefore, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. 1299
1515

IS/ND 27 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the HEU may have the potential to adversely affect, directly and indirectly, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified by state and federal agencies. Specific development projects are unknown at this time. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to sensitive plant species. The Victorville General Plan 2030 includes policies designed to promote the preservation of natural communities. Resource Element Policy 4.1.1 intends to encourage development in a manner that will preserve natural communities. In addition, Resource Element Implementation Measure 4.1.1.2 addresses the requirement for biological surveys for undeveloped properties expected to contain biological resources, coordination with CEQA and USFWS in the preparation of biological surveys and assessments, and keeping the City’s database of sensitive habitats current. Separate from the Victorville General Plan 2030, the City, through its CEQA compliance program, requires that new development projects in undeveloped areas prepare an assessment of biological habitat , including riparian habitat and other se nsitive natural communities. Future projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect special-status wildlife species. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive communities would be less than significant.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. Isolated wetlands that may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act , are supported in the City. Implementation of future development und er the HEU may directly or indirectly affect such wetlands. Specific development projects are unknown at this time. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to federally protected wetlands . Any potential impacts to these resources from future projects implemented through the HEU would require consultation with and permits from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers , Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW and potentially require aquatic resources delineations to be performed. Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be less than significant.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or wit h established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of future development under the HEU , including expansion of roads, and increased population may adversely affect the ability of wildlife to move 1300
1516

IS/ND 28 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
through the City and cause habitat fragmentation. Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 4 policy implementation measures address species movement/corridors. In Resource Element Implementation Measure 4.1.1.3, the City shall continue to work with the USFWS and the CDFW to ensure that individual projects comply with federal and state laws protecting sensitive plant and wildlife species. In areas so designated by the agencies, appro priate surveys shall be conducted , and appropriate mitigation shall be applied. In areas so designated by the agencies, appropriate surveys shall be conducted at the times of year necessary to detect all sensitive species for which potentially suitable habitat exists on a given site and appropriate mitigation shall be applied. Future projects would be required to comply with these goals and policies , as well as federal, state, and local regulations in place, to protect species movement. Impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Projects in the City are required to comply with policies protecting biological resources identified in the Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan 2030 (City of Victorville 2008a). In addition, the City maintains a Joshua Tree Preservation Ordinance, which prohibits the removal of Joshua trees unless following proper procedure and with consent of the City. Any future residential development proposed on sites with Joshua trees would be subject to these regulations, Resource Element policies , and th e California Fish and Wildlife Commission candidacy listing of the western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia var. brevifolia). Impacts would be less than significant.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan , or any other applicable Habitat Conservation Plan. No impact would occur.

1301
1517

IS/ND 29 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.5 Cultural Resources

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 , the first Native American group to historically occupy the Mojave Desert was the Shoshoneans. This group was composed of bands of people who spoke similar languages. These bands moved west from the Great Basin, a vast inland region of the western United States, into the Mojave Desert. It is believed that these bands were well established 1,200 to 1,500 years ago and possibly as early as 3,000 years ago. One of these bands of people, the Serrano, occupied an area from the southern fringe of the San Bernardino Mountains, east to Twentynine Palms and north into the Mojave Desert. The Serrano practiced a hunting-and- gathering-based subsistence , focusing on the collection of seasonally available food sources.

Prehistoric settlements in the Planning Area centered on the Mojave River drainage, with longer, more permanent habitation occurring on the first and second terraces of the river floodplain. These settlements subsisted on the fruit of Joshua trees, mesquite beans, tule bulbs, and small game, such as rabbit and lizard. The more permanent settlements included formal tools of a non -portable nature, such as ground stone tools. Rock art and shelters were also associated with these sites.

The introduction of the Spanish mission system in the mid - to late 1700s gradually eroded the Serrano’s way of life. Villages were abandoned, hunting and gathering was disrupted by agricultural practices, and Native American populations were significantly reduced by European diseases. In the late 1700 s, the Spanish, led by the famed Spanish explore r Francisco Garcés, explored the western Mojave Desert in an unsuccessful search for an overland route from the Colorado River to Monterey. The Spaniards traveled through the Victor Valley along an ancient Native American trading route, known today as the Mojave Trail. In the early 1830s, part of this trail was incorporated into a pack-train road known today as the Old Spanish Trail, which extended between Southern California and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Some 20 years later, when the histo ric wagon road known as the Mormon Trail or Salt Lake Trail was established between Utah and Southern California, it followed essentially the same route across the Victor Valley area. Since then, the Victor Valley has always served as a crucial link for a succession of major transportation 1302
1518

IS/ND 30 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
arteries, where the heritage of the ancient Mojave Trail was carried on by the Santa Fe Railroad since the 1880s, by the National Old Trails Highway and Historic U.S. Route 66 during the early and mid-20th century, and finally by today’s Interstate 15.

Mining became an important part of the local economy with the discovery of gold, silver, copper, marble, limestone, and borax in the 1860s. Settlement in the area resulted from transportation and local mining activities. Victorville, known as the Town of Victor, was a railroad station named in 1885 after California Southern Railroad (Santa Fe Railroad) construction superintendent Jacob Nash Victor. On January 18, 1886, the plan of the Town of Victor was prepared , which created the grid pattern of the original town. The name was changed to Victorville in 1901 by the U .S.

Post Office to avoid confusion with Victor, Colorado. Agricultural development occurred as a result of available water and rich river bottom lands. Around the turn of the century, large deposits of limestone and granite were discovered, prompting cement manufacturing to become the leading industry in the valley. In 1916, the Southwestern Portland Cement Company began operation in Victorville. In 1926, U.S. Route 66 was designated using the existing National Old Trails Highway system, which was to create a “ribbon of pavement ” from Chicago, Illinois , to California. The route originally went through Hesperia but was realigned in 1924 to create a more efficient and safe route to Victorville. A portion of this famous highway provided a major transportation corridor through Victorville in which Seventh Street and “D” Street were a part.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Previously unrecorded and recorded built environment resources are located in the City. Implementation of the HEU may have the potential to result in the removal of historical resources in the City ; however, the HEU does not propose any specific development.

Instead, the HEU would identify action programs that could be implemented to provide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with state housing law. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to historical resources. The Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 5 is to preserve important historic al resources. Resource Element Policy 5.1.1 requires a project to determine presence/absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources. When necessary, reconnaissance level surveys would be required by qualified professional historians and/or architectural historians. Resource Element Policy 5.1.2 prohibits the destruction of historical resources and requires mitigation for any significant impacts that may be identified during project review. In addition, the Victorville Zoning Ordinance includes a histor ic district overlay that is intended to protect and promote the preservation, maintenance, and/or improvement of landmarks or points of interest and to ensure new structures within the district are compatible with the character to be preserved. Future projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with 1303
1519

IS/ND 31 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
applicable policies to protect historical resources. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 , at least 178 archaeological and/or historical sites have been identified within the Planning Area. However, only approximately one-third of the total acreage within the Planning Area has been covered by project- related cultural surveys, leaving most of the area yet to be systematically and intensively surveyed (City of Victorville 2008a). Therefore, implementation of the HEU may have the potential to result in impacts to previously known and unknown buried archaeological resources.

The HEU would not propose any specific development. Instead, the HEU would identify action programs that could be implemented to prov ide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with state housing law. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to archaeological resources.

Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 4 outlines policies that strive to preserve cultural resources in the City, which include archaeological resources. Resource Element Policy

5.1.1 requires projects to determine the presence and absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources during project review. Development that is proposed on known sensitive sites or sites that are discovered to be sensitive require a reconnaissance survey to determine the likelihood of discovering resou rces during construction. In addition, Victorville Municipal Code , Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 2, Grading Regulations, includes specific criteria that address the discovery of archaeological resources during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on known sites requires a reconnaissance survey to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. If resources are encountered on an unknown site, the Victorville Municipal Code requires that grading cease until the resource s can be evaluated. Future projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable policies to protect arch aeological resources.

Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future development consistent with the HEU has the potential to encounter previously buried known and unknown resources. However, the HEU would not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to arch aeological resources, including human remains. Goal 4 of the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element outlines policies that strive to preserve cultural resources in the City, which include human remains. Resource Element Policy

5.1.1 requires projects to determine the presence and absence of and consider impacts to cultural 1304
1520

IS/ND 32 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
resources during project r eview. Development that is proposed on known sensitive sites or sites that are discovered to be sensitive require a reconnaissance survey to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. In addition, Victorville Municipal Code, Tit le 16, Chapter 5, Article 2, Grading Regulations, includes specific criteria that address the discovery of archaeological resources, including human remains, during construction excavation. Furthermore, if human remain s are encountered during project construction, the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, require that work in the immediate area must halt and that the remains must be protected. The County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified immediately , if applicable, per Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California Health and Safety Code. The responsibilities for acting on notification of a discovery of Native A merican human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.94. Future projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect human remains. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

1305
1521

IS/ND 33 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.6 Energy

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards (CALGreen) for residential and nonresidential structures; the most recent version includes the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart res idential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non residential lighting requirements. The City has adopted the 2019 CBC, including CALGreen, and includes it as Title 16, Chapter 5, Building and Fire Regulations, of the Victorville Municipal Code.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future residential development pursuant to the HEU would be consistent with the current Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designation and would not result in unplanned regional energy use. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to energy supply due to the anticipated development. Energy resources would be consumed during constructi on of future development under the proposed project. Energy would also be consumed to provide operational lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation for future development. The HEU does not propose any specific development projects that would require energy to operate or an increase in vehicle trips . Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review of any adverse impacts to energy to include site-specific compliance with the CBC, C ALGreen, and any other requirements i ncluded as par t of the Victorville Municipal Code and Victorville General Plan 2030 . Future development accommodated under the HEU would be required to comply with the current and future updates 1306
1522

IS/ND 34 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, and th e Victorville Energy Code to ensure that energy demand associated with growth consistent with the HEU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Victorville General Plan 2030 and the Victorville Climate Action Plan (CAP) (City of Victorville 2015) are the applicable plans for energy efficiency in the City. Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 7 promotes energy sustainability by developing alternative power supplies and reducing energy use. Resource Element Policy 7.2.1 strives to minimize energy use of new residential, commercial, and industrial projects by requiring high efficiency heating, lighting, and other appliances, such as cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, overhead, and area lighting, and low oxides of nitrogen (NOx) water heaters. In addition, the Victorville CAP includes various reduction measures, including building energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, the HEU would contain policies related to energy conservation , including encouraging infill development that includes capital improvements like sidewalk repair and lighting improvements (HE -M.2) and continuing to require that all substandard units in the City be improved so that they comply, where required, with the existing Building Code (HE-D.5).

Therefore, because implementation of the HEU would be consistent with the growth assumptions in the Victorville General Plan 2030 , implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable energy efficiency plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

1307
1523

IS/ND 35 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.7 Geology and Soils

n
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The Planning Area is located in seismically active Southern California, a region that has experienced numerous earthquakes in the past. The Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones Act specifies that an area termed an Earthquake Fault Zone is to be delineated if surrounding faults are deemed sufficiently active or well-defined after a review of seismic records and geological studies.

The City is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. 1308
1524

IS/ND 36 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
According to the Victorville General Plan 2030, five fault systems affect the Victorville area: San Andreas, Helendale, North Frontal, Landers, and San Jacinto Faults. The San Andreas Fault is approximately 24 miles south and is considered most likely to produce a major earthquake.

Portions of the Victorville Planning Area, especially those areas along the Mojave River, may be susceptible to liquefaction.

The topography of the Victorville Planning Area varies considerably from gently sloping topography occasionally dissected by an intermittent stream channel to near ly vertical slopes adjacent to the Mojave River.

Paleontological resources in the City include nine ancient lake bed deposits estimated to date back to the Pleistocene Epoch (10,000 to 900,000 years ago). These lake beds contain numerous mammalian fossils, including teeth, limb fragments, phalanges , and metacarpal from horses, camels, and other large animals. The fossil -bearing rock layers are essentially level due to their formation from an ancient lake bed. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 , the entire Planning Area is considered sensitive regarding paleontological resources due to the existence of recovery sites throughout.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known faul t? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. No known or suspected fault traces are in the Victorville area. Additionally, the City is not subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. No impact would occur. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Ground shaking is responsible for the majority of damage from earthquakes and can damage or destroy buildings. The intensity of shaking depends on the type of fault, distance to the epicenter, magnitude of the earthquake, and subsurface geology. The closest fault systems could produce earthquakes that cause substantial ground motion that could result in serious injuries or deaths, as well as significant property damage, due to the seismic activity of the region as a whole. However, the HEU would not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Future housing facilitated by the HEU would be required t o comply with the CBC, and Title 16, Chapter 5, Building and Fire Regulations, of the Victorville Municipal Code would reduce exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. In addition, any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in 1309
1525

IS/ND 37 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction results when water-saturated, sandy, unstable soils are subject to intense shaking, such as that caused by an earthquake. These soils lose cohesiveness , causing unreinforced structures to f ail. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element, portions of the Planning Area are within a liquefaction hazard area. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU may have the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from liquefaction. The HEU would not proposed any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with all relevant federal and state regulations and building standards , including the preparation of a project-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report. Future projects would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Several earthquake faults exist within the vicinity of the City. The nearest, the North Frontal Fault Zone of the San Bernardino Mountains, is approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the Planning Area along the base of the Ord Mountains. An earthquake large enough to result in moderate ground shaking is possible. Seismic risks are significantly higher in areas closer to the region’s major faults, and a moderate or major earthquake could result in potentially damaging ground shaking. Development on the hillside areas where steep slopes are present can exacerbate landslide haza rds. The HEU does not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the CBC and the recommendations of the project -specific Geotechnical Investigation Report , including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design, which would reduce potential adverse impacts from landslides. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose specific development plans for new housing units at this time. Therefore, project components , such as the amount of grading, excavation, and vegetation removal, for future housing units are unknown. If a project proposes to disturb more than 1 acre of soil, it is required by the state to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include best management practices (BMP s) for erosion and sedimentation control. BMP examples generally include an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls, which include barriers such as silt fences, hay bales, drain inlet protection, 1310
1526

IS/ND 38 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
and gravel bags. Existing vegetation should be preserved as much as possible. Future development of housing units that is facilitated by adoption of the HEU would be subject to these conditions for a construction permit; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Development on hillside areas when steep slopes are present can increase rates of erosion and exacerbate landslide hazards, lateral spreading, liquefaction , or collapse, which may threaten structures. Portions of the City have areas where slopes exceed 15 percent. Th e development on slopes with this degree of inclination is difficult and should be avoided if possible to prevent property damage resulting from slope failure. The HEU does not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Any future housing development that is fostered by the HEU would be required to adhere to the CBC and other standards and regulations for building designs. The Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element contains s pecific goals and policies that address hazards related to the development of hillside areas. The Victorville Zoning Ordinance contains a Slope Protection District, which regulates the maintenance and protection of sloped areas in excess of 5 feet in vertical height. Impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or soil would be reduced through compliance with the Victorville General Plan 2030 , Victorville Zoning Ordinance, existing codes , and adherence with the recommendations of the project -specific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansion and contraction of soils in response to changes in moisture content could lead to differential and cyclical movements that could cause damage or distress to structures and equipment. Thus, they are less suitable for development than non-expansive soils.

Future development of housing unit s consistent with the HEU would have t he potential to be adversely impacted by expansive soils ; however, t he HEU would not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Any future housing development that is fostered by the HEU would be required to adhere to the CBC, the Victorville Development Code, and other standards and regulations for building designs. Impacts resulting from expansive soil s would be reduced through compliance with existing codes and adherence with th e recommendations of the project -specific Geotechnical 1311
1527

IS/ND 39 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 EIR (2008b), there are several areas in the City and its sphere of influence where wastewater is treated with on -site septic systems. However, the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority estimates in its Sewage Facilities Plan Update Year 2005 Amendment that 97 percent of the City’s population is currently connected to the City ’s sewer system. The Victorville General Plan 2030 allows septic tanks in certain large lot areas in the southwestern portion of the City. Future development facilitated by the HEU may include septic tanks for wastewater disposal. Soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are subject to provisions of the Victorville Municipal Code, which require soils engineering investigations, including soil bearing capacity and soil expansion. The Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element requires complete soils and geologic/geotechnical in vestigations as a standard procedure and CEQA compliance where there is a possible threat of liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, landslides or mudslides. Therefore, with compliance with the Victorville Municipal Co de and Victorville General Plan 2030 policies, impacts would be less than significant. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 , the entire City is considered to be sensitive regarding paleontological resources. Future development projects facilitated by the HEU would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. However, the HEU would not propose any specific development.

Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. The Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 5 is designed to protect paleontological resources. Specifically, Resource Element Implementation Measure 5.1.2.3 requires paleontological monitoring of land alteration projects involving excavation into native geologic materials known to have a high sensitivity for the presence of paleontological resources. In addition, Victorville Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 2, Grading Regulations, includes specific criteria that address the discovery of paleontological resources during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on known sites requires a reconnaissance survey to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. If resources are encountered on an unknown site, the Victorville Municipal Code requires that grading cease until the resource can be evaluated. Future projects facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable policies to protect paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 1312
1528

IS/ND 40 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, and water vapor. In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Victorville Zoning Ordinance, the land use policies of the Victorville General Plan 2030, and the Victorville CAP ( City of Victorville 2015). The HEU does not change any land use policy or any building regulations that would raise or otherwise change development levels that could contribute to an increase in GHGs.

The Victorville General Plan 2030 identifies goals and policies that will contribute to better air quality in the City. The proposed H EU would encourage implementation of these goals and policies. Victorville General Plan 2030 policies and implementation measures that reduce GHG emissions include encouraging planning and development activities that reduce the number and length of single-occupancy automobile trips (Policy 6.1.1); requiring sustainable building design and development for new residential, commercial, and industrial projects (Policy 7.2.1); minimizing energy use of new residential, commercial , and industrial projects by requiring high efficiency heating, lighting , and other app liances, such as cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, overhead and area lighting, and low NO X water heaters (Implementation Measure

7.2.1.2); and requiring drought-tolerant landscaping in all new developments (Implementation Measure 7.2.1.3). In addition, the Victorville CAP includes various reduction strategies with the 1313
1529

IS/ND 41 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
goal of achieving GHG reductions regarding building energy, on -road transportation, wastewater treatment and discharge, and water conveyance.

The HEU would not include any regulations or other policies that would encourage inefficient building practices that could affect the volume of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur under existing Victorville General Plan 2030 policies. Additionally, the HEU would not create the ability for any new development to occur that would not otherwise occur, and would not authorize any specific development project. As such, its adoption would not directly generate any GHG emissions. The HEU is specifically intended to facilit ate the development of housing as allowed by existing land use policies and in a manner that encourages improvement of jobs -housing balance, higher-density development in proximity to transit, and mixed-use development.

Future residential development in th e City w ould be required to comply with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements of the CBC and CALGreen. Compliance with these codes will further increase energy efficiency in new residential buildings, reducing total energy demand and reducing the level of GHG emissions generated from coal, natural gas, and oil -based energy sources. In addition, the HEU contains GHG-reducing policies, including promoting infill development (HE- C.1); continuing to require that all substandard units in the City be improved so that they comply, where required, with the existing Building Code (HE -D.5); encouraging infill development that includes capital improvements like sidewalk repair and lighting improvements (HE -M.2); encouraging the continued provision of open space to the City, such as developments that include green space for public use (HE-M.4); and establishing flexible mixed-use development standards to encourage new development in deteriorated commercial areas (HE -P.2). The HEU would be consistent with the City ’s overall efforts for energy and conservation policies to reduce GHGs; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the HEU would not propose any specific development. As such, its adoption would not directly generate any GHG emissions. However, future development facilitated as a result of the HEU would have the potential to generate GHG emissions and to show consistency with the City’s applicable GHG-reducing plan.

The City prepared its CAP in September 2015 to present GHG inventories, identify the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identify local measures selected by the City to reduce GHG emission s under the City ’s jurisdictional control to achieve the City’s identified AB 32 2020 GHG reduction target. The Victorville CAP allows developers to demonstrate that their projects are consistent with the Victorville CAP by demonstrating compliance with the Victorville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table review process. The Victorville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table review process allows developers to 1314
1530

IS/ND 42 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
streamline CEQA review and to bypass a complete GHG analysis on their own for CEQA processing. Emissions associated with projects that are consistent with the Victorville CAP are considered less than significant, and their contributions to cumulative emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable.

However, the Victorville CAP does not align with the statewide goals beyond 2020, and thus, the Victorville CAP is not consistent with the criteria in CEQA Guidelines , Section 15183.5, for the post-2020 period. Consequently, the City is currently working with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to update the current Victorville CAP to address SB 32 and post -2020 GHG emission reductions.

To meet the intent of SB 32, the City is in the process of adopting the City of Victorville 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) to implement Victorville General Plan 2030 policies focused on GHG emissions. The GGRP sets an aggressive goal to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2020 baseline GHG emission levels. To achieve this goal, the GGRP will require 100 percent of new industrial buildings to install on -site renewable electrical generation ( i.e., photovoltaic solar panels).

Therefore, future projects under the HEU would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Victorville CAP and the GGRP through project-specific CEQA review and to implement mitigation measures as needed. Impacts would be less than significant.

1315
1531

IS/ND 43 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The California Health and Safety Code defines a hazardous material as “any material that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Thus, the term “hazardous material” is a broad term for all substances that may b e hazardous, specifically including hazardous substances and hazardous waste. Substances that are flammable, corrosive, reactive, oxidizers, radioactive, combustible, or toxic are considered hazardous. 1316
1532

IS/ND 44 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would be a policy document and would not propose any specific development. However, construction activities associated with future development under the HEU could involve the use of chemical substances such as solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and other potentially hazardous materials. These materials are common to typical construction activities and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. New residential units may contain household hazardous materials, such as paint, herbicides/pesticides, diesel fuel, and cleaning products, that have the potential to spill. Residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. Long -term operation of the future residential land uses would not involve substantial amounts of hazardous substances during operation. Future development of the sites would be consistent with the type and intensity of surrounding residential development. Adherence to regulations , including federal and local regulations, and standard protocols during the storage, transportation, disposal, and usage of any hazardous materials would minimize the hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element includes goals to protect the community against natural and human-generated hazards and to protect the community from siting projects in known hazards areas. All future development would require project -specific environmental evaluation to determine that any potential impacts related to the transport or release of hazardous waste are less than significant.

Potential hazard-related impacts would be location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the location of a project site is known. When a development proposal is considered, the project would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards, and any impacts identified with the development project would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact. Site-specific CEQA review and compliance with the standards and regulations at the time of future development would result in less than significant impacts. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. One way human exposure to hazardous substance s could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance s into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to a ny toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure to contaminated soil, soil gas, or water can have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
1317
1533

IS/ND 45 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
As stated previously, the HEU would not propose any specific development. However, construction of new residential units facilitated as a result of the HEU may result in accidental releases, such as petroleum -based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not consi dered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials that would be used during residential unit construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law, including the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirements, federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, and the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right -to- Know Act. Compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term operation of future residential units could contain household hazardous materials, such as paint, herbicides/pesticides, diesel fuel, and cleaning products, that have the potential to spill.

Residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. Adherence to regulations and standard protocols during the storage and use of any hazardous materials, as discussed above, would minimize and avoid the potential for significant upset and accident condition impacts. In addition, the Victorville Municipal Code establishes a hazardous materials release response and inventory program to initiate quick response to accidental releases. All future development would require project -specific environmental evaluation to determine that any potential impacts are less than significant. Potential hazard -related impacts would be location specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way un til the location of a project site is known.

When a development proposal is considered, the project would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards, and any impacts identified with the development project would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact. Therefore, impacts related to accidental releases would be less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Schools are located throughout the City. However, development that would be facilitated as a result of the HEU would be strictly residential units, and residential uses typically do not use or store la rge quantities of hazardous waste. New developments would be subject to planning, zoning, and procedures involved in site plan approvals, and land use planning would typically separate uses that would place a school near a development where hazardous materials may be used. Through the City ’s environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated for the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment. 1318
1534

IS/ND 46 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
In addition, future development would be required to comply with the objectives and policies in the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element , including restricting land uses in areas identified as susceptible to hazards (Objective 2.1) and maintaining a database of the locations, scope, and severity of natural and human-made hazards in the City. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials near a school would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a policy document and does not propose any specific development. However, future development facilitated as a result of the HEU could locate residential units on a hazardous materials site. Through the City’s environmental review process, it would be determined if a potential development site is on or within the immediate vicinity of any known hazardous material site. If applicable, projects may be require d to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which would include a database search for existing hazardous materials sites ; identify potential violations under federal and/or applicable state and local environmental laws; and provide recommendations for correcting deficiencies or problems. Where appropriate, mitigation measures would be r equired for specific projects to reduce potential hazards to the public.

In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element includes objectives and policies aimed at protecting the public and future development from hazards in the Ci ty. This inc ludes restricting land uses in areas identified as susceptible to hazards (Objective 1.1) and developing and maintaining a database of the locations, scope , and severity of natural and human-made hazards in the City (Policy 1.1). This will aid local planni ng in the siting of projects in known hazard areas. Safety Element Implementation Measure 1.3.1.1 has the Victorville Fire Department continue as the local Certified Unified Program Agency, including having the responsibility to comment on all proposed ind ustrial, medical, research , and development or other types of land uses that involve the generation, storage, use, transportation, disposal , or recycling of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous waste sites wo uld be less than significant.
e. Would the project for a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contains one airport, the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA), located in the northwestern portion of the City. The SCLA is a 2,500-acre world- class aviati on and air cargo facility serving international and domestic needs. Currently, the majority of the operations at the SCLA are categorized as General Aviation, with a portion of the operations related to military training missions. The smallest portions of the annual operations are 1319
1535

IS/ND 47 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
categorized as Air Carrier and Air Taxi. No regularly scheduled commercial flights occur at the SCLA; however, there is regularly scheduled air taxi service (City of Victorville 2008a).

To minimize the risk and to reduce the severity of aviation accidents, six safety zones have been established for the SCLA based on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. To ensure that community land uses are outside areas where aviation accidents are most likely to occur, three SCLA Safety Review Areas are identified with policies formulated to address the specific safety concerns of those areas. Future residential development facilitated as a result of the HEU would be required to comply with the SCLA safety guidelines to ensure development is not within a safety hazard zone. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element, Goal 1, Objective 1.4, is directly applicable to the SCLA to prevent loss of life, serious injury, and significant damage to structures and critical facilities due to aircraft mishap at the SCLA. Safety Element Policy 1.4.2 is set to avoid conflicts with the Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan for the SCLA. Through the City ’s environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated for compatibility with the SCLA to ensure a project would not result in a safety hazard of excessive nois e for people residing or working in the Planning Area. Impacts would be less than significant.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City has prepared its own Emergency Plan in compliance with the State Office of Emergency Services and the Victorville Municipal Code, and it identifies responses and actions depending on the nature and scope of the disaster. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element includes emergency preparedness planning consisting of three main compo nents: (1) hazard identification and risk assessment , (2) hazard prevention and abatement, and (3) emergency response and action. The Safety Element identifies hazards present in the City and briefly focuses on assessing the scope of risk associated with t he hazards and emergency preparedness procedures and fire, police, and medical facilities and/or staffing.

Construction activities associated with future residential development associated with the HEU would have the potential to interfere with emergency p lans and procedures if authorities are not properly notified or multiple projects are constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked. Future housing facilitated under the HEU would be consistent wi th the current Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations , and therefore, no changes in the City ’s existing circulation network would be proposed or required under the HEU. However, future housing projects would be subject to site-specific review and would be subject to City regulations regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. Compliance would prevent multiple roadways used for emergency routes from being concurrently blocked. Therefore, impacts associated with t he physical interference of an Emergency Evacuation Plan would be less than significant. 1320
1536

IS/ND 48 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Viewer ( CAL FIRE 2021), the City is designated as a moderate and unzoned Local Responsibility Area . No designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are in the City. Development of future housing consistent with the HEU in a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone could result in a potentially significant impact from the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands. Through the City ’s environmental review process, future development projects associated with the HEU would be required to abide by the CBC, which contains measures to reduce fire hazards in structures , including the use of materials, fire separation walls, building separation, and fire sprinklers. In addition, the City has adopted a Fire Hazard Abatement Ordinance (Title 8, Chapter 8.08, City of Victorville Fire Code, in the Victorville Municipal Code), which requires the abatement of weeds in excess of 3 inches above the grade in the area of growth on such a portion of the lot or premises within 100 feet of any structure. Adherence to this ordinance reduces the likelihood of fires on undeveloped lands and on vacant lots in the developed portions of the City. Before approval of a development project or issuance of a building permit, the Victorville Water District (VWD) verifies that the peak load water supply requirement is not negatively affected in the case of a fire. Finally, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element includes several policies that reduce the exposure of people and the environment to wildland fire risks. These include ensuring that new private or public development has sufficient fire protection, police, and emergency medical services available (Policy 2.1.1) and ensuring that new development proposals (private or public) do not over -consume the City ’s water supplies to the extent that the minimum volume of water storage required to meet the City ’s peak load water supply standard could not be met (Policy 2.3.1). Policy 2.4.1 is set to con tinue to share public health and safety concerns with other public agencies, including local, regional, state, and federal.

Implementation Measures 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3 serve to continue to maintain mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions regarding fire protection. Compliance with existing regulations and Victorville General Plan 2030 policies would reduce impacts to a level below significant. Impacts would be less than significant.

1321
1537

IS/ND 49 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City is in the Mojave River Watershed, which encompasses approximately 4,700 square miles and is entirely within San Bernardino Co unty. The primary geographic and surface hydrologic feature of the watershed is the Mojave River. The City exhibits typical California and Nevada high desert meteorological conditions. Typical of these conditions are annual rainfall of less than 8 inches. While summers may produce an occasional thunderstorm, the wettest season tends to be from January to March.

A major portion of the City is on top of a gently sloping large alluvial fan situated to the northeast of the San Bernardino Mountains and referred to as the Cajon Fan (or Victorville Fan). The Mojave River runs along the fan’s eastern margin and is the City’s most notable topographic feature. This 1322
1538

IS/ND 50 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
river is very unusual in that it flows from south to north, conveying runoff out of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains for approximately 80 miles until it empties at Soda Lake.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impacts. Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with residential development consistent with the HEU may result in short -term impacts to water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequen t deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities lead to exposed areas of loose soil and sediment stockpiles that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU may result in long-term impacts to the quality of stormwater and urban runoff, subsequently impacting downstream water quality, and could potentially create new sources for runoff contamination.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards. Any future development within the Planning Area would be subject to the federal Clean Water Act , which is established through compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act . In the City, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board issues and approves NPDES permits per the federal Clean Water Act . NPDES Construction General Permits require projects to develop and implement a SWPPP, which must list the BMPs the applicant will employ to “prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater,” and BMPs must be developed “with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving water channels.” The SWPPP must also include a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants.

The NPDES also requires local governments to obtain an NPDES Permit for stormwater-induced water pollutants in its jurisdiction. The City is a copermittee of the Mojave River Watershed Group of small communities enrolled under statewide Phase II Municipal Storm water NPDES Construction General Permit No. CAS000004 for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems effective in 2005. The permit establishes a region -wide Stormwater Management Plan to control discharges of sanitary wastewater, septic tank effluent, car wash wastewaters, improper o il disposal, radiator flushing, laundry wastewater, spills from roadway accidents, and improper disposal of toxic materials. Pollutant control measures in the Stormwater Management Plan include a specific focus on failing septic tanks, industrial/business connections, recreational sewage, and illegal dumping. Developers are required to implement appropriate BMPs on construction sites to control erosion and sediment.

In addition, future housing projects would be required to comply with the Victorville Municipal Code, which contains extensive requirements for water conservation and recycling measures. The 1323
1539

IS/ND 51 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Policy 1.3.1 requires development projects to prepare and implement Water Quality Management Plans that incorporate BMPs, which reinforces the NPDES regulatory requirements. Compliance with federal, state, and City regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitate d by the HEU would be consistent with land use designations contained in the Victorville General Plan 2030. Water service in the Planning Area is currently provided by the VWD. The City draws all of its water supply from the Alto (or Upper Mojave) sub-basin of the Mojave River Groundwater Basin.

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to incorporate features that would reduce impervious area, as feasible, and promote water infiltration. Treatment control and hydromodification management facilities would promote retention and infiltration of stormwater.

Redevelopment of developed sites requires compliance with water quality standards intended to reduce runoff, increase infiltration, and improve water quality. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element includes policies that protect grou ndwater resources. Specifically, Water Resources Policy 1.3.1 requires new development and major public and private redevelopment projects to prepare and implement Water Quality Management Plans that incorporate a variety of structural and nonstructural BMPs to minimize, control , and filter construction site runoff and various forms of developed site urban runoff before discharge to receiving waters. Implementation Measure 1.3.1.2 requires future projects to assess and mitigate impacts on surface and ground water quality as a routine aspect of the City ’s CEQA implementation procedures. Compliance with federal, state, and City regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the r ate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
1324
1540

IS/ND 52 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Less Than Significant Impact. A major portion of the City is on top of a gently sloping large alluvial fan situated northeast of the San Bernardino Mountains and referred to as the Cajon Fan (or Victorville Fan) with the Mojave River running along the fan ’s eastern margin. The majority of the City is characterized by gently sloping topography of less than 9 percent grade.

Future residential development facilitated by the HEU could result in the altera tion of drainage patterns, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, during and after construction activities. Stormwater drainage and system modifications and improvements associate d with future housing development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, including discharge rate controls, and be designed for a 100-year storm event.

In addition, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for avoiding construction and operational impacts that could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river, including NPDES permitting and the Construction General Permit, compliance with the Victorville Municipal Code, and Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element goals and policies for implementing Water Quality Plans and incorporating BMPs. Considering these requirements, future housing development fa cilitated by the HEU would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. This includes no alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than 50 feet above sea level and within 1 mile of the shoreline. The entire project is more than approximately 70 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be susceptible to inundation or flooding due to a tsunami.

Seiches are defined as wave -like oscillatory movements in enclosed or sem i-enclosed bodies of water, such as lakes or reservoirs, and are most typically associated with seismic activity. The City is not subject to inundation by seiche. The majority of the City is characterized by gently sloping topography of less than 9 percent grade. In areas dissected by an intermittent stream channel the terrain can vary with nearly vertical slopes adjacent to the Mojave River. The Victorville Municipal 1325
1541

IS/ND 53 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Code contains provisions to protect against mudflow in Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 16 , Fl ood Damage Prevention.

The principal flood hazard to the developed portions of the City is from the Mojave River. In the event of a 100 -year flood, flood water would be confined to the river ’s floodplain. In addition, several intermittent streams that drain the City and empty into the Mojave River include the Ossom Wash, West Fork Ossom Wash, Bell Mountain Wash, and Oro Grande Wash. There is a potential for flooding from these streams in the event of a 100-year flood. Project developments associated with the HEU in the City would be subject to flooding, damage, and public safety issues if located within the 100-year flood zone.

Construction activity would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP , which specifies BMPs that reduce or prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site in stormwater runoff and minimize erosion caused by flooding associated with the construction project. The Victorville Municipal Code contains provisions to safeguard the public and structures from flood hazards, including restrictions on uses that are dangerous to health, safety , and property; controls on alterations of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural flood barriers; and prohibition of development within 100- year flood zone areas as identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps and on Victorville land use and zoning maps. Victorville Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 16, Flood Damage Prevention, contains methods of preventing and reducing flood hazards, and Title 16, Chapter 3, Zoning and Land Use Requirements, provides zoning to ensure safety in Conservancy and Flood Plain (FP) zoned areas. Within the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource and Safety Elements, goals are provided to protect the community from flooding and geological hazards. The objectives and policies reinforce the Victorville Municipal Code by providing that development be l ocated outside of flood hazard areas, maps be updated to reflect the 100 -year flood hazards, and those areas be designated for Open Space -Natural Hazards on the Land Use Policy Map and on the Conservation/Open Space Map. With implementation of the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals and policies, Victorville Municipal Code, and NPDES Construction General Permit, impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the City is under the jurisdiction of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board . Water quality standards and control measures for surface and ground waters of the Lahontan region are contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. The plan designates beneficial uses for water bodies and establishes water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses.
1326
1542

IS/ND 54 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Future housing projects associated with the HEU would comply with the requirements under the NPDES Permit program, the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit in the Mojave River Watershed, the City-approved Water Quality Management Plan, and implementation of associated BMPs and other requirements of SWPPP , as well as a City -approved Drainage Plan, which would ensure stormwater discharges associated with construction and use of future development projects comply with regulatory requirements in the City and would not conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan or Groundwater Management Plan. Compliance with state and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing construction and operation al impacts to prevent conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, including the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control District and with federal, state, and City regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant.

2.4.11 Land Use and Planning

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Physical development in the City is currently governed by the existing Victorville General Plan 2030 adopted in October 2008. The Victorville General Plan 2030 disaggregates the City and its sphere of in fluence according to land use designations, with residential being the predominant existing land use.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. Projects that divide an established community can involve large scale linear infrastructure, such as freeways, highways, and drainage facilities that bisect an established community or create barriers to movement within that community. “Locally undesirable land uses,” such as prisons or landfills, sited within economically depressed areas can also divide an established community. The HEU would not propose any development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. However, the HEU would identify a series of implementing actions that would increase housing capacity.

Future housing development would occur in areas currently zoned for residential use; therefore, 1327
1543

IS/ND 55 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
an increase in housing capacity would be a consistent land use that would not physically divide the community. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU is a component of the Victorville General Plan 2030 that assesses the ho using needs of all economic segments of the City. In addition, the HEU would define the goals and policies that would guide the City ’s approach to resolving those needs and would recommend a set of programs that would implement policies over the next few y ears. The HEU would be concerned with specifically identifying ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. Specifically, the HEU would put forth specific policies to update the Land Use Element and Victorville Zoning Code to bring regulations and policies in compliance with current state laws and to allow for increased residential development to create more opportunities for development of diverse housing options for residents of the City (Policies HE - A.1 and HE-A.3).

Future projects consistent with the HEU would be subject to the Victorville General Plan 2030, update to the General Plan (once approved), and Victorville Zoning Code. These documents and ordinances include standards to protect aesthetic quality and scenic viewsheds, biological resources, cultural resources, and public health and safety. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

1328
1544

IS/ND 56 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.12 Mineral Resources

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Naturally occurring mineral resources in the City include sand, gravel , or stone deposits that are suitable as sources o f concrete aggregate, primarily along the Mojave River. The Victorville General Plan 2030 recognizes the potential for occurrence of mineral resources along the Mojave River corridor and d esignates these areas as MRZ-2b mineral resource zones . The MRZ -2b mineral resource zone designation represents areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that significant resources are present or are inferred. In the City, the only areas designated as MRZ-2b occur along the Mojave River corridor.

According to the Victorville General Plan 2030, the predominance of the City is designated as MRZ-3a.

The MRZ-3a mineral resource zone is defined by the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element as “areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.” Impact Analysis
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing facilitated by the HEU would be consistent with Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations and would not substantially limit the future availability of known mineral resources. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030 EIR, an active cement mining operation continues to be located on the northwestern side of State Route 18 (City of Victorville 2008b). The sand and gravel mining used in these operations meet the definition of a mineral resource as any form of natural rock materials that have comme rcial value. However, these sand and gravel deposits are not classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology as important mineral resources. In addition, future housing development would occur in areas currently zoned for residential use, which is not compatible with mining operations. Impacts would be less than significant.
1329
1545

IS/ND 57 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.13 Noise

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Noise is usually defined as unwanted or excessive sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. The primary sources of noise in the City are freeways and roadways, railroad traffic, SCLA aircraft operations, and stationary sources.

The City c onsiders noise exposure for single - or multi -family residential development to be “normally acceptable” if the maximum exterior noise level is 60 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or less. Exterior noise levels at residential occupancies of up to 65 dB CNEL are allowed if exterior levels have been substantially mitigated and interior noise exposures meet the interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL. Exposures up to 70 dB CNEL for residential uses are considered conditionally acceptable if all measures to reduce such exposure have been taken , but would be considered as significantly noise -impacted. Noise levels above 70 dB CNEL are considered normally unacceptable except in unusual circumstances.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of housing facilitated by the HEU would have the potential to generate both short-term and long-term noise impacts. Short-term noise impacts could occur during grading and construction. Construction activities have the potential to expose adjacent land uses to noise levels that could temporarily exceed the City’s Noise Standards. The 1330
1546

IS/ND 58 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
degree of noise impact would depend on the distance between the construction activity and the noise sensitive receptor. Long -term noise impacts would b e associated with vehicular traffic to/from the site (including residents and visitors), outdoor activities, and stationary mechanical equipment on site. Traffic associated with future developments consistent with Victorville General Plan 2030 land use des ignations would result in long -term increases in ambient noise levels.

However, depending on the size of each development, this increase may be noticeable for some people but may not significantly impact surrounding sensitive uses and may not generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.

However, the HEU would not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would require subsequent CEQA review. Victorville General Plan 2030 Noise Element provisions, particula rly Policies 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 and their respective implementation measures, would reduce potential noise impacts from roadway noise. Resource Element Implementation Measure 6.2.1.1 restricts the siting of new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. These measures are expected to protect future land uses from locating adjacent to excessive noise generating roadways. In addition, the Noise Element contains a noise/land use compatibility guidelines matrix illustrating which land uses noise levels are normally acceptable and which are not. The Victorville Municipal Code Noise Standards ( Title 13, Chapter 13.01, Noise Control ) establish standards for the regulation of noise levels in the City. The Noise Standards establish base ambient noise levels , which include maximum acceptable noise levels based on the area of noise and time of day. Therefore, compliance w ith the Victorville General Plan 2030 Noise Element policies and compatibility matrix and the Victorville Municipal Code Noise Standards would reduce potential temporary and permanent noise impacts as a result of future housing under the HEU. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities from housing developments facilitated by the HEU could generate v arying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source.

The effect on buildings in the vicinity of a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels to slight damage at the highest levels.

Groundborne vibration from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The HEU would not propose any specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the HEU would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and consideration of potential 1331
1547

IS/ND 59 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
groundborne vibration and groundborne noise impacts. Compliance with Victorville General Plan 2030 Noise Element policies and the Victorville Municipal Code would reduce groundborne noise impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project, for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section 2.4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City contains one airport, the SCLA, in the northwest ern portion of the City. The existing SCLA aircraft contours of 70 and 75 dB CNEL remain entirely on airport property. The 65 dB CNEL noise contour extends off airport property to the south. This area is currently undeveloped. The 60 dB CNEL noise contour extends off airport property to the north, south, and southwest. The 55 dB CNEL noise contour extends off airport property to the north, south, northeast, and southwest (City of Victorville 2008a). The City has also adopted a Specific Plan for development near the SCLA.

The Specific Plan includes Public/Open Space, Business Park, and Industrial designations for land southeast of the runways. The SCLA Specific Plan establishes policies to ensure SCLA operations are compatible with proximate land uses (City of Victorville 2021).

In addition, policies of the Victorville General Plan 2030 Noise Element, notably Polic ies 1.1.2 and 2.2.1 and their respective implementation measures, seek to ensure that no conflict or inconsistency between the operation of the SCLA and future land uses within the Planning Area occurs. These policies and measures require the City to continue to monitor SCLA operations and to coordinate these activities into the planning process. Future housing development as a result of the HEU would be required to comply with both the SCLA Specific Plan and Victorville General Plan 2030 compatibility policies so it would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

1332
1548

IS/ND 60 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.14 Population and Housing

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the population has steadily increased in the City and San Bernardino County from 2010 to 2019 and slightly decreased between 2019 and 2020 due to the Federal Prison Complex inmate decline . Population, housing, and employment are anticipated to grow in the City and San Bernardino County over the next two decades. Specifically, SCAG’s regional forecast ( SCAG and Connect SoCal 2021) anticipates the City ’s population, housing, and employment t o increase by 71,200 people, 27,900 units, and 20,000 jobs between 2016 and 2045.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectl y (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would be a component of the Victorville General Plan 2030 that would assess the housing needs of all economic segments of the City and would address the City’s ability to meet the regional housing needs as determined by the State of California. In addition, the HEU would define the goals and policies that would guide the City ’s approach to resolving those needs and recommends a set of programs that would implement policies over the next few years. The HEU would not propose any specific development. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. The HEU is concerned with specifically identifying ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as necessary to m eet state housing law requirements. The development of new housing holds the potential to increase the number of families and individuals in the area.

However, it would not induce unplanned population growth. 1333
1549

IS/ND 61 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
The HEU would identify a series of implementing actions to increase the City’s housing capacity.

However, any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur near existing infrastructure (roads, utilities) and be served by fire and other emergency responders. Given these conditions and the City’s existing development and housing occupancy patterns, it is not anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the HEU would induce population growth indirectly through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, the HEU would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The HEU would not propose specific development plans at this time. The HEU would anticipate accommodating the City ’s share of the regional housing need s with development primarily on vacant sites. No displacement of housing is anticipated during the planning period.

No impact would occur.

1334
1550

IS/ND 62 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.15 Public Services

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Public services for fire protection, police protection, school, parks, and other facilities, are described below.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency medical services for the City are provided by the Victorville Fire Department. Within the City limits, four fire stations are staffed and operated by fire staff at Victorville Fire Department (City of Victorville 2021). A fifth station is at the SCLA. In addition, three San Bernardino County fire stations are within the City’s existing sphere of influence that provide fire protection services to the City and adjacent unincorporated areas. Each station is equipped with at least one fire engine and three firefighters, with 10 staff on call if needed. Paramedics are provided at every fire station.

IS/ND 63 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
HEU would generate planned population growth, which could incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services.

Future housing facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the CBC standards, which include site access requirements and fire safety standards. The future residential development would also be subject to Victorville Fire Department review through the Site Plan Review process to ensure that adequate em ergency access and fire safety features are provided as part of the project.

Additionally, future development would be required to comply with Victorville Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 16-5.01.080, Development Impact Fee, which offsets impacts of new development on Victorville Fire Department resources. With incorporation of development fees and adherence to local and state regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection for the City is provided by the Victorville Police Department, which is contracted with the San Bernardino County Sheriff. The Victorville Police Department is located at 14200 Amargosa Road. The City also has four satellite police statio ns:
(1) Wimbleton Center at 12370 Hesperia Road , Suite 10; (2) Transportation Center at 16838 D Street; (3) Rodeo Drive at 16464 Lariat Road , No. A; and (4) Victor Valley Mall at 14400 Bear Valley Road.

The HEU would not propose any development. Future hou sing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would generate planned population growth, which could incrementally increase the demand for police services. As part of the Victorville General Plan 2030 EIR (2008b), the City would ensure that the Victorville Police Department updates its facility, equipment, and personnel plans to accommodate the growth projected for buildout of the Victorville General Plan 2030. The first update shall occur within 1 year of approval of the Victorville General Plan 2030 and encompass a minimum period of 5 years. The plans shall be incorporated i nto City contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff and into the City’s capital improvements program process. In addition, each future development would be subject to CEQA review and evaluation of potential impacts on the Victorville Police Department. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City is served by the Victor Elementary School District, Adelanto Elementary School District, Hesperia Unified School District, Snowline Joint Unified School District, and the Victor Valley Union High School District. The HEU would not propose any development. The student population growth from future housing development facilitated by the HEU is anticipated to incrementally increase the demand for school facilities and services. However, future development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the requirements of AB 2926 and SB 1336
1552

IS/ND 64 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
50, which allow school districts to collect development impact fees to minimize potential impacts to school districts as a result of new development. Thus, upon payment of development fees consistent with existing state requirements, impacts would be less than significant.

Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. Outdoor recreation resources in the City include public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths and pedestrian trails, and ground -level linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030, the City currently maintains 198.4 acres of parkland. The City also maintains paseo systems within Specific Plan communities that link neighborhoods to local parks and other neighborhoods.

The HEU does not propose any development. However, the creation of new housing as facilitated by the HEU could increase the volume of residents that may use public parks. Future development would be required to comply with Victorville Municipal Code , Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 16-5.01.080, Development Impact Fee, which would offset impacts of new development on the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. However, the creation of new housing as facilitated by the HEU could increase the volume of residents that may use other public facilities , including the Civic Center Planning Area and Victorville City Library. As part of the Victorville General Plan 2030 EIR (City of Victorville 2008b), the City would update its planning for libraries and community centers at least once every 5 years, beginning in 2010. The plans shall be based on the most current City population and total dwelling unit projections and consider the spatial need for libraries and community centers throughout the City. The plans would be incorporated into the City ’s capital improvements program process. In addition, each future development would be subjec t to CEQA review and evaluation of potential impacts on public facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

1337
1553

IS/ND 65 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Outdoor recreation resources in the City include public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths and pedestrian trails, and ground-level linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. Per the Victorville General Plan 2030, the City currently maintains 198.4 acres of parkland, including two public golf courses.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future residential development anticipated during the HEU relies on existing Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations, which could result in the increase in demand for parks and recreation facilities. Victorville Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 16-5.01.080, Development Impact Fee , requires that all new residential development pay a fee to ensure that the parkland and recreational facility standards established by the City are met with respect to the additional needs created by such development. Future residential development would be required to pay the fee before the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the use of exis ting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities o r require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact . As previously identified, an increase in demand for existing recreational resources may be anticipated with any residential development facilitated by the HEU.

The HEU would not specifically include any proposals for future construction or expansion of recreational facilities. A proposed recreational facility would be subject to CEQA review of any adverse physical effects on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. 1338
1554

IS/ND 66 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.17 Transportation

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City’s circulation system is composed of freeways and their interchanges; arterial, collector, and local streets ; public transportation ; and non -motorized transportation. In addition to these facilities and services, implementation and management of the circulation system include parking policies and goods and freight movement. Four major roadway facilities serve the City: Interstate 15, U.S. Route 395, State Route 18; and Historic U.S. Route 66.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of an updated assessment of housing needs in the City and changes to the policies and procedures the City uses in addressing those needs. Future development facilitated as a result of the HEU consistent with Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations may result in an increase in vehicle trips that would have the potential to impact the circulation system.

However, the HEU would not propose any programs, policies, or ordinances that are inconsistent with current regulations described in the Victorville General Plan 2030 Circulation Element.

Future development under the HEU would be required to comply with all goals, policies, and objectives addressing the City circulation system. These include maintaining a level of service D or better at intersections, except in certain high -activity areas designated by the Planning Commission where a level of service E is acceptable (Policy 1.1.1) , and requiring new development and redevelopment projects to bear responsibility for the traffic system improvements necessary to mitigate the project ’s significant impacts at affected intersections concurrently with construction of such projects. In addition, the Circulation Element contains goals 1339
1555

IS/ND 67 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
and policies for encouraging complete streets and the expansion of multi modal transportation (Goal 2, Policy 2.2.1). Future development would be required to be consistent with City standards, including Victorville Municipal Code , Title 1 6, Development Code, which adopts the CBC standards and regulations related to access and circulation and would be subject to review by the City during final design to ensure adherence to local requirements for internal site circulation and site access. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts to City policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. In addition, the HEU would contain several policies that would reduce transportation impacts from future projects , including promoting infill development (HE -C.1), encouraging infill development that includes capital improvements like sidewalk repair and lighting improvements (HE -M.2), and encouraging development that includes active transportation infrastructure like new and wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes. With compliance with the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals and policies and the Victorville Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. However, future development facilitated as a result of the HEU consistent with Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations may result in an increase in vehicle miles that would have the potential to impact the circulation system. The City’s Resolution No. 20-031, which establishes Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, was approved and adopted on June 23, 2020 , and became effective on July 1, 2020. According to the City’s adopted VMT Analysis Guidelines, projects that will not require a VMT analysis can be screened using either the daily vehicle trips generated by the project or the project’s land use type. The daily vehicle trip threshold is a net increase of 1,285 or less weekday daily trips. Therefore, future development projects brought forth would be required to adhere to the City’s VMT Guidelines, assess VMT impacts, and require project-specific mitigation measures as applicable. Therefore, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU does not propose specific development at this time. Design features of future development would need to be consistent with road design features in the City’s existing circulation system. Through the City’s environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated for potential safety impacts due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.4.9, t he City has prepared its own Emergency Plan in compliance with the State Office of Emergency Services and the Victorville 1340
1556

IS/ND 68 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Municipal Code, and it identifies responses and actions depending on the nature and scope of the disaster. The Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element identifies hazards present in the City and briefly focuses on assessing the scope of risk associate d with the hazards and emergency preparedness procedures and fire, police, and medical facilities and/or staffing.

Construction activities associated with future residential development associated with the HEU would have the potential to interfere with eme rgency access and procedures if authorities are not properly notified, or multiple projects are constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked. Future housing facilitated under the HEU would be consistent with the current Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations, and therefore, no changes in the City’s existing circulation network are proposed or required under the HEU. However, future housing projects would be subject to site-specific review and would be subject to City regulations regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. Compliance would prevent multiple roadways used for emergency routes from being concurrently blocked. Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

1341
1557

IS/ND 69 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applyi ng the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact . The project proposes the adoption of the HEU. Tribal outreach pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 was initiated on July 22, 2021 , with four Tribes (Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians ). The Native American Heritage Commission provided a list of Tribes who should be contacted for information related to Tribal Cultural 1342
1558

IS/ND 70 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Resources. Additional Tribes and individuals (Kern Valley Indian Community, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Serrano Nation of Mission Indians) identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were contacted on August 9, 2021.

The Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma responded to the Tribal outreach and identified that they had no comments on the project and that they deferred to more local Tribes. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded identifying that this effort may impact projects located within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. They requested additional information concerning the proposed project, which was provided to the Band. No other concerns or responses have been received to date. AB 52 and SB 18 consultation is ongoing and will continue throughout the processing of th e project. In addition, f uture development projects implemented through the HEU would require additional consultation with Native American Tribes in accordance with AB

52. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

1343
1559

IS/ND 71 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The source of drinking water supply for the VWD is groundwater. The VWD supplies this water by drilling into the ground and withdrawing it using pumps. The water is pumped into tanks above the ground. The water tanks store the water until there is a demand for it, and then it is gravity fed through using water mains/pipes.

The City, through its Public Works Department, provides sewer service to residents and businesses within the City limits. The City owns, operates, and maintains a sanitary sewer collection system including app roximately 411 miles of sewers. The City operates a 2 .5-million-gallon-per-day wastewater treatment plant. This plant is located at the former George Air Force Base, now known as the SCLA. This plant treats industrial waste from a Dr. Pepper/Snapple bottling plant along with domestic waste from the SCLA and the northwestern area of the City. High-quality recycled water is produced from the plant that is used for irrigation at the SCLA and cooling water for a power generation plant. The remainder of wastewater from the City flows through the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority wastewater treatment plant. 1344
1560

IS/ND 72 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
City-owned storm drainage systems include drain pipes, catch basins, and drainage channels. Curb and gutter, drainage channels, dirt roads, and dirt shoulders lead to a catch basin with drain pipes crossing roads that flow toward the Mojave River.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any development. Future housing facilitated by the HEU would be expected to connect to the existing domestic water supply system, wastewater in frastructure, and existing storm water infrastructure. Overall , future housing development construction and operation would result in increased water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications demands and wastewater and solid waste generation, which would require the expansion or construction of utility infrastructure. Specific projects are unknown at this time and would require CEQA review of any adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The V WD would provide water service to future residential development anticipated by the HEU. Future residential development anticipated during the HEU would rely on existing Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations. According to the Victorville 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City is projected to have an adequate supply of water to meet the increase in demand. In addition, the City is projected to have enough water to meet demand during single-dry year and multiple-dry year scenarios (City of Victorville 2015).

No specific development would be proposed as part of the HEU. New residential development would be required to undergo separate environmental review, including analysis of water supply impacts. All new residential development is required to comply with app licable state and local laws and regulations governing conservation of water supply resources. Sufficient water supplies are available to supply the net increase in water demand anticipated as a result of implementation of the HEU. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project ’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City operates a 2.5-million-gallon-per-day wastewater treatment plant. The remainder of wastewater from the City flows through the Victor Valley Wastewater 1345
1561

IS/ND 73 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Reclamation Authority wastewater treatment plant. Based on the Victorville 2016 Sewer Master Plan, t he City ’s wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve additional units facilitated by the HEU as part of the City ’s anticipated Victorville General Plan 2030 buildout population. Development facilitated by the HEU would be consistent with the adopted Victorville General Plan 2030 and land use designations. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Victorville General Plan 2030, non-hazardous solid and liquid waste generated in the City is currently deposited in the Victorville Landfill, which is northeast of the City at 17080 Stoddard Wells Road. Based on information provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ( CalRecycle), Victorville Landfill has a maximum daily throughput of 3,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 79,400,000 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2021). It is anticipated that this landfill will have sufficient permitted capacity to service solid waste generated by future residential development facilitated by the HEU.

Impacts would be less than significant.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU does not propose any specific development. However, construction activities for future development would be subject to conformance with relevant federal, state, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, future projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible. ” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. Local jurisdictions, including the City, are monitored by the state (CalRecycle) to verify if waste disposal rates set by CalRe cycle are being met that comply with the intent of AB 939. Future projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with CALGreen, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction -related waste though material conserv ation measures and other construction-related efficiency measures. Compliance would be verified by the City through review of project plans and specifications. Lastly, the future projects would be subject to compliance with all applicable solid waste handl ing, processing, and disposal requirements stipulated in Title 6, Chapter 6.36, Solid Waste Services, of the Victorville Municipal Code.

Therefore, future projects would be required to comply with the City’s efforts in reducing solid waste and with solid waste regulations at the state level. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

1346
1562

IS/ND 74 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.20 Wildfire

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the City is within a Local Responsibility Area and is not within an area classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2.4.9, the City has prepared its own Emergency Plan in compliance with the State Office of Emergency Services and the Victorville Municipal Code, and it identifies responses and actions depending on the nature and scope of the disaster. In addition, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Safety Element includes emergency preparedness.

Construction activities associated with future residential development associated with the HEU would have the potential to interfere with emergency plans and procedures if authorities are not properly notified or multiple projects are constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked. Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would increase the number of housing units in the City, which could result in development in areas of the City adjacent to or in fire hazard areas. In the case of a wildfire evacuation, an increase in housing development would incrementally increase vehicular traffic on evacuation routes. Future housing facilitated under the HEU would be consistent with the current Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations, and therefore, no changes in the City’s existing circulation network are 1347
1563

IS/ND 75 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
proposed or required under the HEU. However, future housing projects would be subject to site- specific review and would be subject to City regulations regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. Compliance would prevent multiple roadways used for emergency routes from being concurrently blocked. Therefore, impacts associated with the physical interference of an Emergency Evacuation Plan would be less than significant. b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. However, development of future residential units on candidate sites in Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas are subject to higher wildfire hazards due to slope and prevailing winds based on the location, which would consequently result in higher fire-related risks to people and structures. To minimize risk from wildfire, future development on the candidate housing sites would be required to comply with the 2019 California Fire Code and the CBC to ensure safety and to not create risk toward humans or structures. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. No specific development is currently proposed. H owever, future housing consistent with the HEU may require the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure. Any new infrastructure components would be required to comply with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the City is not within or near a State Responsibility Area or within an area classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Any future housing development that is fostered by the HEU would be required to adhere to the CBC a nd other standards and regulations for building designs , which would minimize any potential risks associated with landslides. In addition, future housing would be subject to City and state drainage and stormwater quality requirements that are designed to reduce stormwater runoff from projects sites by promoting infiltrating, minimizing impervious surfaces, and requiring a no- net increase in flow. Therefore, the future development would not expose people or structures to significant risk associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding. 1348
1564

IS/ND 76 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Impact Analysis
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would not propose any specific development. Instead, the HEU would identify action programs that could be implemented to provide additional capacity for future development of dwelling units consistent with state housing law. Implementation of the HEU would not directly remove sensitive vegetation communities or species or eliminate cultural resources because the HEU would not propose specific development projects. Development anticipated by the HEU would be subject to compliance with the regulations and guidelines set forth in the Victorville General Plan 2030 , the update to the General Plan (once approved), Victorville Municipal Code, and development review process. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential 1349
1565

IS/ND 77 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
impacts to biological and cultural resources. If necessary, additional mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Adoption of the proposed HEU would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal , or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the proposed HEU’s contribution to adverse impacts on wildlife resources, individually or cumulatively, would be less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively con siderable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the implementation of the HEU for the City. The HEU would be a policy document designed to assist the City in future planning.

Cumulative impacts associated with residential development consistent with Victorville General Plan 2030 land use designations have been evaluated at a program or policy level. In addition, future development facilitated by the HEU would be required to be consistent with many Victorville General Plan 2030 policies aimed at reducing cumulative impacts. Furthermore, through the City’s environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated for potential cumulative impacts. Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts. T herefore, the HEU’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The HEU would consist of an updated determination of housing needs in the City and revisions to policies and procedures the City uses in addressing those needs.

The HEU would be a policy document designed to assist the City in future planning. The HEU would not propose any specific development. Environmental impacts with the potential to adversely affect people that may result from development have been evaluated at a program or policy level. Due to the conceptual nature of the future residential development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and other environmental topics that would directly or indirectly affect people . Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with adoption of the HEU would be less than significant.

1350
1566

IS/ND 78 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1351
1567

IS/ND 79 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Section 3 List of Preparers

3.1 Lead Agency
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, California, California 92392
Michael Szarzynski, Senior Planner
Scott Webb, City Planner

3.2 Consultants
Harris & Associates
600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101

Diane Sandman, AICP, Project Director
Ryan Binns, PMP, ENV SP, QA/QC
Kristin Blackson, PMP, Project Manager
Esther Daigneault, Senior Environmental Analyst
Kelsey Hawkins, Environmental Analyst
Lindsey Messner, Technical Editor
Randy Deodat, GIS Analyst

1352
1568

IS/ND 80 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1353
1569

IS/ND 81 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
Section 4 References
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Viewer.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2021. Victorville Sanitary Landfill. Accessed September 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste /SiteActivity/Details/1870?siteID=2652.

City of Victorville. 2008a. General Plan 2030. Accessed September 2021. https://www. victorvilleca.gov/government/city-departments/development/planning/general-plan.

City of Victorville. 2008b. General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report.

City of Victorville. 2015. Climate Action Plan. Accessed September 2021. https://www. victorvilleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/309/636657741247000000.

City of Victorville. 2021. Municipal Code. Ac cessed September 2021. https://library.municode .com/ca/victorville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT16DECO.

City of Victorville. 2021. Southern California Logistics Airport Specific Plan. Final. July 1.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2021. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) and Connect SoCal. 2021. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. September 3. Accessed September 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics -and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.

1354
1570

IS/ND 82 November 2021
City of Victorville 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

1355
1571

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
A

TTACHMENT F
1356
1572
600 B Street, Suite 2000, San Diego, CA 92101  p: 619.236.1778  f: 619.236.1179  www.WeAreHarris.com

MEMORANDUM
To: Scott Webb, City Planner, and Michael Szarzynski, Senior Planner, City of Victorville From: Kristin Blackson, Senior Project Manager, and Kelsey Hawkins, Environmental Analyst, Harris & Associates
RE: City of Victorville Housing Element Update – Comments and Responses on the Public Review Initial Study/Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2021090326)
Date: November 1, 2021
Att: Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Comment Letter The purpose of this memorandum is to document the comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared for the City of Victorville (City) Housing Element Update (project or HEU) and to notify any public agencies commenting on the IS/ND of the public hearing to be held for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15073.

Circulation and Distribution of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration The IS/ND was circulated for a 30-day public review period from September 17, 2021, to October 18, 2021, to obtain input on the environmental document and analyses therein in accordance with CEQA.

The IS/ND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and thus distributed to state agencies, including the California Air Resources Board; California Department of Transportation, District 8; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; California Department of Housing and Community Development; California Native American Heritage Commission; California Office of Historic Preservation; California Department of Parks and Recreation; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 6; and other state agencies deemed appropriate by the SCH.

Additionally, the City filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the IS/ND with the San Bernardino County Clerk, posted the NOI in the Valley Wide newspaper and on the City’s website with a hyperlink to the IS/ND, and distributed the NOI and IS/ND to key stakeholders and those requesting notice.

Comments on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Responses The City received comment letters from Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (September 29, 2021). The comment letter is attached. Following is a summary of the comments and responses to those comments.

Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Comment: This comment letter summarizes what the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is, requests that they be provided notice for all notices related to the project, and states that the City should require the use of a local, skilled, and trained workforce. This comment letter details the benefits of local, skilled workers, including sustainable economic development and a reduction in length of vehicle trips, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the comment letter cites examples of cities that have included a local, skilled workforce policy in their General Plans and requests that the City consider doing the same to mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality, and transportation impacts.
1357
1573
2 Response: This comment letter requests that the City add a policy or requirement for using local, skilled, and trained workers and does not raise an issue with the adequacy or accuracy of the IS/ND. As described in Section 1, Project Description, of the IS/ND, the HEU does not propose the development of housing or associated infrastructure. It simply identifies housing areas to meet the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The adoption of a City-wide policy requiring local skilled labor on all construction projects is not germane to the scope of the HEU or the IS/ND.

Conclusion and Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration The comments received on the IS/ND do not raise an issue with the adequacy or accuracy of the environmental document and do not require revisions to the IS/ND. Therefore, no revisions that would constitute a “substantial revision” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15073.5[b]) are required, and recirculation of the IS/ND is not required. Accordingly, the IS/ND that was circulated for public review is the Final IS/ND.

Public Hearing on the Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration The City will be holding an in-person public hearing for the HEU at its regularly scheduled City Council meeting as follows:

City of Victorville Planning Commission
November 10, 2021
City Council Chambers
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California 92392
Attachment:

Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Comment Letter 1358
1574

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
September 29, 2021
City of Victorville
Planning Commission
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA 92376
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Victorville’s 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update.

Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or “Carpenter”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Victorville’s (“City”) General Plan Update Workshop: Land Use Element. Comments are particularly interested in the City’s Housing Element Update as it relates to the Land Use Element (“Project”).

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

Commenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

Commenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City 1359
1575
City of Victorville – 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update September 29, 2021

Page 2 of 5 ends

of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, Commenter requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
1360
1576
City of Victorville – 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update September 29, 2021

Page 3 of 5 ends

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.” 3 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 1361
1577
City of Victorville – 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update September 29, 2021

Page 4 of 5 ends

In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”
4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. .

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.
7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

In nearly bu ilt-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The

4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
1362
1578
City of Victorville – 6th Cycle RHNA Housing Element Update September 29, 2021

Page 5 of 5 ends

city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

Sincerely,
______________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 1363
1579

EXHIBIT A
1364
1580

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 1365
1581

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 1366
1582

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 1367
1583

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 1368
1584

5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
1369
1585

EXHIBIT B
1370
1586

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist

Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience

Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.

1371
1587

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

1372
1588

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

1373
1589

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

1374
1590

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

1375
1591

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association . Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

1376
1592

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
1377
1593

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

1378
1594

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014

1379
1595

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013

1380
1596

EXHIBIT C
1381
1597
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geo
logic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology
Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
• Senior
Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 1382
1598
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the d evelopment of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 1383
1599
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 1384
1600
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed t he Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 1385
1601
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to t he Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 1386
1602
Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 1387
1603

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 1388
1604

Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 1389
1605
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 1390
1606
Item Number: 3
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: January 18, 2022
Submitted By:

Brenda Hampton, Director of Electric Utility Services

Subject:

Adoption of Resolution No. 22-007 approving the Consent and Agreement and Estoppel Certificate documents required to facilitate the collateral assignment of the City’s Power Purchase Agreement with AM Wind Repower LLC for financing purposes, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said documents and take certain further associated actions Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council Adopt Resolution No. 22-007 to:

1. approve the Consent and Agreement and Estoppel Certificate documents required to facilitate the collateral assignment of the City’s Power Purchase Agreement with AM Wind Repower LLC; and

2. authorize the City Manager to execute said documents and take such further actions and execute such further agreements and documents as may be necessary to carry out the transactions contemplated by said Power Purchase Agreement, the Consent and Agreement, and the Estoppel Certificate Fiscal Impact:

The forecasted purchase obligation for the AM Wind Repower LLC Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (AM Wind PPA) over the 25-year term is $41,380,000. Beginning in fiscal year 2022/2023, the forecasted annual obligation is $1,655,200. VMUS’ operating revenues in fiscal year 2019/2020 were $13,130,900. The delivery of the energy and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) received from the AM Wind PPA will displace the energy and RECs that would have otherwise been procured to meet customer load requirements and regulatory obligations. VMUS will only pay for the metered output and RECs after they have been delivered each month. The restricted funds collected from customers for the Public Purpose Programs Charge would be available to offset any above-market costs.
2 3
7 1
Background:

AM Wind Repower LLC will construct a 27 MW wind generating facility in Riverside County, referred to as the Alta Mesa Wind project (the Facility). On May 5, 2020, the City Council approved the AM Wind PPA between the City of Victorville (City or Buyer) and AM Wind Repower LLC (Seller). Under AM Wind PPA, Victorville Municipal Utility Services (VMUS) will procure 42.74% of the electric generation from the Facility. The County of Riverside has issued its Wind Energy Conversion System permit; General Electric Power transformers are in storage; Seller issued a Notice to Proceed and the Engineering Procurement and Construction contractor to mobilize on site in April 2022; wind turbines are scheduled to be received between August 29, 2022, and September 16, 2022; and the expected Commercial Operation Date (COD) is December 21, 2022.

The AM Wind Repower generating facility and the Gaskell West 2 Solar generating facility (project recently approved by Council) are scheduled to be in operation in 2023. The charts below forecast VMUS’ resource plan for 2023, based upon customer load requirements over the past twelve months.

Hydroelectric - 3.7% Wind - 36.2% Solar - 29.7% System & CAISO Purchases - 30.4 VMUS Resource Mix - 2023
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Hydroelectric Wind Solar System & CAISO Purchases
VMUS Monthly Resource Plan (MWh) - 2023
2 3
7 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24(1,000) -
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Hydroelectric Wind Solar System & CAISO Purchases
VMUS Hourly Resource Plan (MWh) - 2023

Discussion:

Section 14.3 of The AM Wind PPA states that the Seller has the right to assign the PPA as collateral for any financing or refinancing of the Facility, and that the Buyer must in good faith work with the Seller and the Seller’s lender(s) to facilitate such collateral assignment.

There are two agreements associated with this collateral assignment of the AM Wind PPA. The first is the Consent and Agreement (Attachment B to this report and Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 22-007) which acknowledges the City’s consent for Seller to assign all the rights, title, and interest in the PPA as collateral to its construction lender. The second is the Estoppel Certificate (Attachment C to this report and Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 22- 007) which lists the City’s representations and warranties with respect to the AM Wind PPA, to facilitate the assignment by the Seller. The Consent and Agreement must be approved and executed by the City at the financial closing, while the Estoppel Certificate need only be approved as to the general form and will be executed by the City at the COD of the Facility.

California Wind Holding LLC (Construction Borrower) owns 100% of the equity of AM Wind Repower LLC and has selected Computershare Trust Company (Collateral Agent) as the lead construction lender for the project. California Wind Member LLC (Term Lender) owns 100% of the equity of California Wind Holding LLC and selected Wells Fargo Bank to provide the permanent financing for the Facility. The Construction Borrower and Term Lender assigned all rights, title, and interest in the AM Wind PPA as collateral to the Collateral Agent.

The Consent and Agreement acknowledges the City’s consent to assign all the rights, title, and interest in the AM Wind PPA to the Collateral Agent and places the Collateral Agent in the same position as AM Wind Repower LLC. The City has received a $550,000 deposit from AM Wind Repower LLC that is available to offset any claims arising from its failure to perform prior to the COD. The Consent and Agreement does not waive or modify in any respect any of the rights of the City under the PPA or relieve AM Wind Repower 2 3
7 1
LLC from any performance obligations under the PPA, but does clarify that there are no restrictions regarding the source of funds that the City may draw from in order to pay amounts due under the AM Wind PPA and that the payments due thereunder are obligations of the City.

The Estoppel Certificate provides the Tax Equity Investor (Wells Fargo Central Pacific Holdings, Inc.) with certain representations and warranties as of the COD including that:
(1) the City is duly formed and validly existing and has all requisite power and authority to perform its obligations under the Estoppel Certificate and the AM Wind PPA; (2) execution, delivery and performance of the Estoppel Certificate have been duly authorized; (3) the Estoppel Certificate constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the City; (4) the Estoppel Certificate will not result in any violation of any legal requirements presently in effect that could have a material adverse effect on the City in performing its obligations; (5) the Seller is not in default under the AM Wind PPA; (6) the AM Wind PPA represents the entire agreement other than the automatic extension of the Guaranteed Start Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date; (7) the Seller does not owe any payments with respect to liquidated damages, warranty or indemnity claims; (8) all representations and warranties under the AM Wind PPA are true and correct as of the COD; (9) there are no pending or threatened action or proceeding that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the City’s ability to perform; (10) the City has no existing counterclaims, offsets or defenses against Seller; (11) the City is not aware of an event of force majeure; (12) Buyer’s obligations to make payments are supported by, but not limited exclusively to, revenue from the City’s electric utility; (13) there are no restrictions regarding the source of funds to make payments under the the AM Wind PPA; and (14) obligations under the AM Wind PPA are unsubordinated obligations. Consistent with Section 14.3 of the AM Wind PPA, the Estoppel Certificate affords the Tax Equity Investor an additional five business days to cure default for the failure to pay amounts owed to the City, and an additional thirty days for any other breach or default. VMUS staff will confirm that the actual Estoppel Certificate to be signed as of the COD, reflects the City’s representations and warranties, and request that it be signed.

Resolution No. 22-007 (Attachment A to this report) not only seeks approval of the documents consenting to the transactions discussed above, but further requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute said documents (subject to any non- substantive changes as may be necessary and approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney prior to execution) and to further take any required actions or sign any such additional documents or ancillary agreements as are necessary to further the transactions contemplated by the AM Wind PPA, the Consent and Agreement, and the Estoppel Certificate. However, the City Manager’s authority to so act and sign is circumscribed by the requirements that: (1) such ancillary agreements and documents are within the scope of and contemplated by the express provisions of the AM Wind PPA or the above- discussed documents; and (2) any such ancillary agreements or documents are first reviewed and approved by the City’s outside regulatory counsel and the City Attorney.

This delegation of authority is being requested to streamline administration of the AM Wind PPA, given that additional financing or refinancing of the Facility might occur, 2 3
7 1
requiring prompt execution of similar consents and certificates, and to facilitate the taking of other non-discretionary actions as may be required by the provisions of the AM Wind PPA and the documents currently being approved by the attached resolution.

The AM Wind PPA Consent and Agreement and Estoppel Certificate have been reviewed and approved by VMUS staff, the City Attorney, outside regulatory counsel at Braun Blaising Smith Wynne, P.C., and the City’s energy consultant. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Honorable City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-007 to approve and authorize execution of the Consent and Agreement and Estoppel Certificate by the City Manager, and to further authorize the City Manager to take such additional actions and sign such further agreements as may be necessary to further the transactions contemplated by the AM Wind PPA, the Consent and Agreement, and the Estoppel Certificate.

Staff remains available for any questions you may have.

Attachments: A. Resolution No. 22-007
B. Consent and Agreement (Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 22-007) C. Estoppel Certificate (Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 22-007) Attachment A
Resolution No. 22-007
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CONSENT AND

AGREEMENT AND ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE DOCUMENTS

REQUIRED TO FACILITATE COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF THE
CITY’S POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH AM WIND
REPOWER LLC FOR FINANCING PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENTS; AND FURTHER

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS

AND SIGN SUCH DOCUMENTS AND ANCILLARY AGREEMENTS AS

ARE NEEDED TO CARRY OUT THE TRANSACTIONS

CONTEMPLATED BY THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE

CONSENT AND AGREEMENT, AND THE ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
WHEREAS, the City of Victorville (“City”), a municipal corporation, is authorized under various provisions of the California Constitution and the general laws of California (including, specifically, Article XI, section 9(a) of the California Constitution, Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) section 10004, and Government Code Section 39732(a) to establish, purchase, and operate a public utility to furnish its inhabitants with, among other things, electricity; and WHEREAS, the City of Victorville operates a municipal electric utility (“ Victorville Municipal Utility Services” or “VMUS”); and
WHEREAS, as a municipal electric utility, VMUS is generally subject to the legislative and regulatory requirements applicable to local publicly owned electric utilities (“POUs”); and WHEREAS, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (“RPS”) as codified in, inter alia, PUC Sections 399.11 through 399.31 and California Public Resources Code Sections 25740 through 25751, requires POUs and other load serving entities to procure eligible renewable energy resources ( “ERRs”) so that the amount of electricity generated from ERRs equals or exceeds a specified percentage of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the RPS requirements and to provide its customers with energy from renewable resources at competitive prices, at its meeting on May 5, 2020, the City Council approved and the Mayor subsequently executed, a long -term power purchase agreement between AM Wind Repower LLC (“Seller”) and the City as Buyer (the “ PPA”) under which the City contracted to purchase electric energy output, bundled Renewable Energy Credits, and associated local Resource Adequacy value from the Alta Mesa Wind Project facility (the “Facility”), once said Facility is constructed and operational; and WHEREAS, Section 14.3 of the PPA permits the Seller to assign the PPA as collateral for any financing or refinancing of the Facility, provided that in connection therewith, Seller and the City work in good faith with Seller and Seller’s lender to agree upon a consent to collateral assignment of the P PA, including the exec ution and delivery of any reasonably requested documentation and certifications; and
2 WHEREAS, in connection with obtaining financing for the Facility and to provide additional clarity to the terms of the PPA ; Seller, City, and Seller’s lender have negot iated and agreed upon a Consent and Agreement (the “ Consent”), and an Estoppel Certificate (the “Estoppel”), which now require City Council approval and authorized execution; and WHEREAS, Section 19.2 of the PPA provides that the P PA may only be amended , modified, or supplemented by an instrument in writing executed by duly authorized representatives of the Seller and the City; and
WHEREAS, given that the PPA’s twenty -five-year term and forecasted purchase obligation of $41,380 ,000 exceeded the authority provided to the City Manager to approve and execute contracts for VMUS energy purchases by Victorville Municipal Code (“VMC”) Section

2.28.310(a), the PPA was approved by the City Council and executed by the Mayor in accordance with VMC Section 2.28.330; and
WHEREAS, although VMC Section 2.28.030 and the doctrine of delegation of authority permit the City Council by resolution to expressly authorize execution of contracts by the City Manager or other City officials following their approval/award by the City Council, and to delegate the authority to take further actions in accordance with standards provided by the City Council, no resolution requesting such authorization and or delegation was included with the original agenda item requesting approval of the PPA; and
WHEREAS, further financing or refinancing of the Facility may occur, necessitating the prompt execution of further similar certificates and consents, or other actions might need to be taken to further the transactions contemplated by the PPA, the Consent, and the Estoppel, including execution of additional documents or ancillary agreements, which may be time-sensitive; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to authorize the City Manager to execute the Consent and the Es toppel on behalf of the City, and to ensure that future ancillary documents and agreements necessary to administer the PPA, the Consent, and the Estoppel, and the transactions contemplated thereby, are timely reviewed, approved, and executed by adopting this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct, and together with the definitions contained therein are hereby incorporated into and made an operative part of this Resolution.

Section 2. Collateral Assignment of PPA and Consent and Estoppel Approved That the collateral assignment of the PPA for financing purposes, and the clarifying amendments as set forth in the Consent and the Estoppel, are hereby approved. 3 Section 3. Consent and Estoppel Approved for Execution by City Manager That the Consent and the Estoppel, substantially in the forms attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 respectively, are hereby approved for execution by the City Manager, subject to such non-substantive changes as may be necessary and approv ed by the City Manager and the City Attorney prior to said execution.

Section 4. Additional City Manager Authorization; Limitations That the City Manager, or such person as he/she may designate in writing, is authorized to take such further actions as are required to implement the transactions contemplated by the PPA, the Consent, and the Estoppel, including the execution of any additional ancillary agreements or documents that may be required; provided that such ancillary agreements or documents are: (a) within the scope of and contemplated by the express provisions of the PPA, the Consent, or the Estoppel; and (b) reviewed and approved by the City’s outside regulatory counsel and the City Attorney prior to any such execution.

Section 5. Effective Date
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 6. Resolution Certification
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

Attachment B
Consent and Agreement
(Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 22-007)
Exhibit 1
Consent and Agreement

CONSENT AND AGREEMENT
among

CITY OF VICTORVILLE,
(Contracting Party)

AM WIND REPOWER LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
(Project Company)
and
COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
(Collateral Agent)
Dated as of _____________, 2022

CONSENT AND AGREEMENT
(City of Victorville PPA)
This CONSENT AND AGREEMENT (this “ Consent”), dated as of ______________, 2022, is entered into by and among CITY OF VICTORVILLE (together with its successors and permitted assigns, “Contracting Party”), COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. , in its capacity as collateral agent for the Secured Parties referred to below (together with its successors, designees and assigns in such capacity, “Collateral Agent”), and AM WIND REPOWER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Project Company”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Contract (as defined below).

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, Project Company intends to develop, construct, install, test, own, operate and maintain an approximately twenty-seven (27) MW wind generation facility located in Riverside County, California (the “Project”).

B. WHEREAS, (i) California Wind Finance LLC , a Delaware limited liability company (the “Pledgor”), owns one hundred percent (100%) of the equity interests in California Wind Member LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “ Term Borrower”), (ii) the Term Borrower owns, as of the date hereof, one hundred percent (100%) of the equity interests in California Wind Holding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “ Construction Borrower”), and (iii) the Construction Borrower owns one hundred percent (100%) of the equity interests in Project Company;
C. WHEREAS, in order to partially finance the develop ment, construction, installation, testing, operation and use of the Project, the Construction Borrower and the Term Borrower have entered into that certain Financing Agreement, dated as of ______________, 2022 (as amended, amended and restated, supplemente d or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Financing Agreement ”), by and among the Construction Borrower, the Term Borrower, the lenders and issuing banks party thereto from time to time, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, in its capacity as administrative agent to the lenders and issuing banks, Collateral Agent, and the other parties named therein, pursuant to which, among other things, the lenders and issuing banks have extended commitments to make loans and other financial accommodations to, an d for the benefit of, the Construction Borrower and the Term Borrower.

D. WHEREAS, Contracting Party and Project Company have entered into that certain Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2020 (as may be amended, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof and hereof, the “Contract”).

E. WHEREAS, Project Company has entered into that certain Collateral Agency, Depositary and Security Agreement , dated as of ______________, 202 2 (as the same may be amended, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “CADSA”) with Collateral Agent , the Construction Borrower , the Term Borrower, the Pledgor and certain other entities, pursuant to which Project Company has agreed, among other things, to assign, as collateral security for the Construction Borrower ’s obligations under the Financing

2 Agreement and other documents related to the Financing Agreement and any other documents entered into pursuant to the Financing Agreement from time to time to evidence senior secured pari passu indebtedness of Project Company (collectively, the “Credit Documents”), all of Project Company’s right, title and interest in, to and under (but not its obligations, liabilities or duties with respect to) the Contract to Collateral Agent for the benefit of itself, the lenders, issuing banks and each other entity or person that is provided collateral security under the Credit Documents (the “Secured Parties”).

F. WHEREAS, Project Company is obtaining this Consent pursuant to Section 14.3 of the Contract.

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and i ntending to be legally bound, the parties hereto hereby agree, notwithstanding anything in the Contract to the contrary, as follows:

SECTION 1. CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
(a) Contracting Party acknowledges the assignment referred to in Recital E above, consents to such assignment and agrees with Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Secured Parties as follows:
(i) After delivery by Collateral Agent to Contracting Party of notice that an Event of Default (as defined in the Financing Agreement) has occurred and is continuing, Collateral Agent shall be entitled (but not obligated) to exercise all or any portion of the rights and to take any or all actions of Project Compan y under the Contract in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein. Upon receipt of notice from Collateral Agent that it intends to exercise such rights and remedies, Contracting Party agrees to accept such exercise and cure by Collateral Agent so long as timely made by Collateral Agent under the Contract and this Consent. Any such cure or attempt to cure by Collateral Agent shall not be construed as an assumption by Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties, or any of their respective assigne e(s) or designee(s) of any covenants, agreements or obligations of Project Company under or in respect of the Contract. (ii) Contracting Party will not without the prior written consent of Collateral Agent, cancel or terminate the Contract, or suspend performance of its services thereunder or consent to or accept any cancellation, termination or suspension thereof by Project Company, except as provided in the Contract and in accordance with Section 1(a)(iii) hereof. Contracting Party shall deliver duplicates or copies of all notices of Default (as defined below) to Collateral Agent simultaneously with delivery thereof to Project Company.
(iii) Contracting Party will not terminate the Contract or suspend performance of its services thereunder on account of any default or breach of Project Company thereunder, or upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of any event or condition under the Contract which would immediately or with the passage of any applicable grace period or

3 the giving of notice, or both, entitle Contracting Party to terminate or suspend performance thereunder (such default, breach, event or condition, a “ Default”), without written notice to Collateral Agent (which notice may be provided concurrently to Collateral Agent and Project Company) of such termination or suspension and first providing to Collateral Agent a reasonable opportunity to cure such Default, but not more than ninety (90) days from the expiration of Project Company’s cure period set forth in the Contract so long as Collateral Agent sends the Contract Party a written notice of its intention to cure such Default prior to the expiration of such cure period; provided that, except as otherwise set forth herein, in no event shall Project Company’s cure period set forth in the Contract plus Collateral Agent’s cure period under this Consent exceed one hundred eighty (180) days . If possession of the Project is necessary to cure such Default, and Collateral Agent declares Project Company in default under the Financing Agreement and commences foreclosure proceedings within one hundred eighty (180) days and Collateral Agent is making diligent and consistent efforts to complete such foreclosure, take possession of the Project and promptly cure the such Default , Collateral Agent will be allowed a reasonable p eriod to complete such proceedings before Contracting Party terminates the Contract or suspends performance under the Contract . Notwithstanding the foregoing, i f Collateral Agent is prohibited by any court order or bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings from curing the Default or from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure proceedings, the foregoing time periods shall be extended by the period of such prohibition, but not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of such court order or proceeding. (iv) In the event Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s) or a purchaser or grantee at a foreclosure and sale or by a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure take possession of or title to the Project or any of the Project assets, and so long as no Default exists under the Contract (it being acknowledged and agreed that if Contracting Party irrevocably waives any Default of Project Company under the Contract, no such Default shall be deemed to exist), then Collateral A gent, the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s) or other purchaser or grantee shall assume the obligations of Project Company (or Collateral Agent or the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s)) under the Contract that arise from and after the date of such assumption. (v) Subject to the restrictions set forth in the Contract, as may be modified herein, Contracting Party consents to the transfer of Project Company’s interest under the Contract to the Secured Parties or Collateral Agent or their designee(s) or assignee(s) or any of them or a purchaser or grantee at a foreclosure sale by judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure and sale or by a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure and agrees that upon such foreclosure, sale or conveyance, Contracting Party shall recognize the Secured Parties or Collateral Agent or their designee(s) or assignee(s) or any of them or other purchaser or grantee as the applicable party under the Contract, provided that such Secured Parties or Collateral Agent or their d esignee(s) or assignee(s) or other purchaser or grantee (A) assume in writing the obligations of Project Company under the Contract arising or accruing from and after the date of such assumption, it being understood, however, that such assumption shall not operate as a waiver of the Defaults existing under the Contract prior to the date of such assumption and (B) assume the Contract subject to Contracting Party’s rights thereunder. Notwithstanding any assumption in accordance with this Section 1(a)(v), Project Company shall not be released or discharged from and shall remain liable

4 for any and all of its obligations to Contracting Party arising or accruing under the Contract prior to such assumption.
(vi) In the event that the Contract is rejected by a trustee or debtor-in-possession in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding, or if the Contract is terminated for any reason other than a Default which could have been but was not cured by Collateral Agent as provided in Section 1(a)(iii) above, and if, within sixty (60) days after such rejection or termination, Collateral Agent or its successors or assigns shall so request, Contracting Party will execute and deliver to Collateral Agent a new contract, which contract shall be on the same terms and conditions as the o riginal Contract, including the remaining term of the original Contract before giving effect to such termination. References in this Consent to the “Contract” shall be deemed also to refer to such new contract. (vii) In the event Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties, any designee or assignee of the foregoing or any purchaser or grantee thereof elects to succeed to Project Company’s interests under the Contract as provided in Section 1(a)(viii) or to enter into a new contract as provided in Section 1(a)(v) above, such person shall, subject to the terms of this Consent, assume the obligations of Project Company under the Contract to the extent provided herein; provided that such assumption of rights and obligations shall not include the assumption of any other liabilities for claims of Contracting Party against Project Company arising from Project Company ’s failure to perform during the period prior to the such Collateral Agent’s, Secured Parties’, designee’s or assignee’s succession to Project Company’s interest in and under the Contract. T he sole recourse of Contracting Party in seeking the enforcement of such obligations shall be to such Collateral Agent’s, Secured Parties’, designee’s or assignee’s interest in the Project (and no officer, director, employee, shareholder or agent thereof shall have any liability with respect thereto). (viii) In the event Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s) succeed to Project Company’s interest under the Contract, Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s) shall cure any then-existing Defaults under the Contract, except any Defaults which by their nature are not capable of being cured (including, without limitation, defaults which relate to bankruptcy of Project Company or other defaults that relate to the status or condition of Project Company at the time of the Default because they are personal to Project Company). Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties and their designee(s) or assignee(s) shall have the right to assign their interest in the Contract or the new contract entered into pursuant to Section 1(a)(v) above to a person or entity to whom Project Company’s interest in the Project is transferred, provided such transferee (A) assumes the obligations of Project Company (or Collateral Agent or the Secured Parties or their designee(s) or assignee(s)) under the Contract ) and (B) is a Permitted Transferee. Upon such assignment, Collateral Agent and the Secured Parties and their designee(s) or assignee(s) (including their agents and employees) shall be released from any further liability thereunder to the extent of the interest assigned. (ix) This Consent shall not be deemed to waive or modify in any respect any of the rights of any Contracting Party under the Contract against Project Company or to relieve Project Company from the observance and performance of any and all covenants and conditions of Project Company except as otherwise expressly provided herein.

5 (b) Following a Default by Project Company under the Contract, Contracting Party may, upon written notice to Project Company or Collateral Agent, request a report concerning:
(i) the status of efforts by Project Company or Collateral Agent to develop a plan to cure the Default;
(ii) impediments to such cure plan or its development;
(iii) if a cure plan has been adopted, the status of the cure plan’s implementation (including any modifications to the plan as well as the expected timeframe within which any cure is expected to be implemented); and
(iv) any other information which the Contracting may reasonably require related to the development, implementation and timetable of the cure plan.

Project Company or Collateral Agent, as applicable, shall provide the report to Contracting Party within ten (10) Business Days after receipt of Contracting Party’s request therefor. Following delivery of the requested report to Contracting Party, Project Company and Collateral Agent shall have no further obligations to provide any additional report, but shall provide such further information with respect to the applicable Default as Contracting Party may reasonably request from time to time.
(c) The Contracting Party agrees not to (i) assign or transfer or (ii) amend, supplement or modify the Contract in any material respect, without the p rior written consent of Collateral Agent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld).

SECTION 2. CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Notwithstanding any provision contained in the Contract to the contrary, effective as of the date hereof, each of Project Company and Contracting Party acknowledges and agrees to the following (unless otherwise defined in this Consent, capitalized terms used in this Section 2 shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Contract, as amended and modified pursuant to this Consent):
(a) Project Company has notified Contracting Party that, pursuant to the terms of the Credit Documents , (i) the Construction Borrower , as the sole member of Project Company , pledged and assigned to Collateral Agent, and granted to Collateral Agent a security interest, in, among other things, all of its rights, titles and interests in and to one hundred percent (100%) of the membership interests in Project Company (the “Project Company Membership Interests”) until the Term Conversion Date , ( ii) the Term Borrower, as the sole member of the Construction Borrower, pledged and assigned to Collateral Agent, and granted to Collateral Agent a security interest, in, among other things, all of its rights, titles and interests in and to one hundred percent (100%) of (A) prior to the Term Conversion Date under the Financing Agreement, the membership interests in the Construction Borrower and (B) on and after the Term Conversion Date, the Class B Units in the Construction Borrower (the “Construction Borrower Membership Interests”), and (iii) the Pledgor, as the sole member of the Term Borrower , pledged and assigned to Collateral Agent, and granted to Collateral Agent a security interest, in, among other things, all of its rights, titles and interests in and to one hundred percent (100%) of the membership interests in the Term

6 Borrower (the “Term Borrower Membership Interests”). Contracting Party hereby acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Contract, Collateral Agent, acting on behalf of the Secured Parties, shall have the right to foreclose on, or otherwise dispose of, pursuant to the terms of the Credit Documents, (X) Project Company Membership Interests held by the Construction Borrower, (Y) the Construction Borrower Membership Interests held by the Term Borrower, and (Z) the Term Borrower Membership Interests held by the Pledgor, and such foreclosure on, or disposition of, Project Company Membership Interests, the Construction Borrower Membership Interests and the Term Borrower Membership Interests, shall in no event be deemed to constitute or result in a “Change of Control” under and as defined in the Contract or be subject to any transfer restrictions under the Contract or require the consent of Con tracting Party.
(b) In addition to the collateral assignment of the Contract permitted by Section 14.3 of the Contract, Project Company may collaterally assign all of its assets pursuant to the CADSA before the Term Conversion Date.
(c) Collateral Agent shall not be required to be a Permitted Transferee in connection with such Secured Party becoming party to the Contract upon the exercise of remedies under the Credit Documents following an event of default under the Financing Agreement. (d) Vestas American Wind Technology, Inc. satisfies the requirement set forth in clause (b) of the defined term “Permitted Transferee” in the Contract.

SECTION 3. ARRANGEMENTS REGARDING PAYMENTS
All payments to be made by Contracting Party to Project Company under the Contract from and after the date hereof and until the date that the Secured Parties’ lien in the Contract is released pursuant to the terms of the Credit Documents shall be made in lawful money of the United States, directly to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as the depositary bank, for the benefit of Collateral Agent, acting for the benefit of the Secured Parties, for deposit to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, ABA # 021001088, SWIFT Code: MRMDUS33 , Account:
002600161, Beneficiary: Corporate Trust Administration , For Further Credit to Account Number/Name: 10-884855/California Wind Holding LLC Construction Account, or at such other person or entity and/or at such other address as Collateral Agent may from time to time specify in writing to Contracting Party. From and after the date hereof and until the date that the Secured Parties’ lien in the Contract is released pursuant to the terms of the Credit Documents and notice thereof is provided to Contracting Party, Contracting Party shall not, without the prior written consent of Collateral Agent, make any payments to or for the benefit of Project Company other than as contemplated pursuant to the first sentence of this Section 3.

SECTION 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
(a) Contracting Party hereby represents and warrants as of the date of this Consent that:
(i) it (A) is (1) a validly existing California municipal corporation, (B) has the legal power and authority to own its properties, to carry on its business as now being conducted and to enter into the Contract and this Consent, and to perform and carry out all covenants and obligations on its part to be performed under and pursuant to the Contract and this Consent; (ii) the execution,

7 delivery and performance by Contracting Party of this Consent and the Contract have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Contracting Party and do not require any approvals, filings with, or consents of any entity or person which have not previously been obtained or made; (iii) each of this Consent and the Contract is in full force and effect, has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of Contracting Party by the appropriate persons of such Contracting Party, and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such Contracting Party, enforceable against such Contracting Party in accordance with its te rms, except as the enforceability thereof may be limited by (Y) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and (Z) general equitable principles (whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law); (iv) to the best of Contracting Party’s knowledge after due inquiry, there exists no Default or event that with the giving of notice or passage of time would become a Default under the Contract ; (v) to the best of Contracting Party’s knowledge, no Force Majeure Event exists under, and as defined in, the Contract; (vi) except as otherwise provided herein and other than the automatic extension of the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date pursuant to t he notice provided by Project Company to Contracting Party dated April 16, 2021 and the subsequent automatic extension of the Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date pursuant to the notice provided by Project Company to Contracting Party dated November 2, 202 1, the Contract has not been amended, supplemented or modified (whether by waiver, consent or otherwise); (vii) the execution, delivery and performance by Contracting Party of this Consent and the Contract do not (A) conflict with the governance documents of Contracting Party, (B) result in any breach of, default under or the imposition of any lien upon any of the property or assets of Contracting Party pursuant to any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust or other material agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it or any of its properties or assets is bound or (C) contravene any applicable federal or state laws or order, writ, injunction, decree or arbitral award binding upon Contracting Party or its properties or assets; ( viii) there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation at law or in equity or by or before any court, arbitrator, administrative agency or governmental authority pending or, to the best of Contracting Party ’s knowledge, threatened against or affecting Contracting Part y or any of its respective properties which questions the legality, validity, binding effect or enforceability of this Consent or the Contract or which individually or in the aggregate, would, if adversely determined, materially adversely affect Contracting Party’s ability to enter into and carry out its obligations under this Consent or the Contract; (ix) Contracting Party’s obligations to make payments under the Contract enjoy first priority of payment at all times, and are unsubordinated to any and all b ond ordinances or indentures to which the Contracting Party is a party, and such general undertakings are permitted by Article XI of the California Constitution, all other relevant constitutional, organic or other governing documents and any other Law presently in effect having applicability to the Contracting Party; (x) there are no restrictions regarding the source of funds that the Contracting Party may draw from in order to pay amounts due under the Contract and payments under the Contract are obligations of the Contracting Party; and (xi) without limiting the foregoing, the City’s obligations to make payments under the Agreement are supported by , but are not limited exclusively to, the revenues from the electric utility operations of the Contracting Party’s publicly owned utility. (b) Project Company represents and warrants to Contracting Party as of the date of this Consent that: (i) it (A) is a duly o rganized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, (B) is duly qualified, authorized to do business and in good standing in every jurisdiction necessary to perform its obligations under the Contract and this Consent, as applicable,

8 and (C) has all requisite power and authority to enter into and to perform its obligations under this Consent and the Contract, as applicable, and to carry out the terms hereof and thereof and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby; (ii) the executio n, delivery and performance by such party of this Consent and the Contract have been duly authorized by all necessary limited liability company or other action on the part of such party and do not require any approvals, filings with, or consents of any ent ity or person which have not previously been obtained or made; (iii) each of this Consent and the Contract, as applicable, is in full force and effect, has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of such party by the appropriate officers of such party, and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such party, enforceable against such party in accordance with its terms, except as the enforceability thereof may be limited by (A) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other similar laws affe cting the enforcement of creditors' rights generally and (B) general equitable principles (whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law); and ( iv) to Project Company’s knowledge, there exists no Default or event that with the giving of notice or passage of time would become a Default under the Contract.

SECTION 5. NOTICES
All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective upon receipt if sent by (a) hand delivery, (b) facsimile, (c) by electronic mail in “.PDF” format or (d) by private courier or delivery service with charges prepaid, and addressed as specified below:

If to Contracting Party:

City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA 92392
Attention: Keith Metzler, City Manager
Email: [email protected]

If to Collateral Agent:

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.,
as Collateral Agent
Corporate Trust Services
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Attention: Jason Prisco or Lance Yeagle – California Wind Email: [email protected]
If to Project Company:

AM Wind Repower LLC
c/o Brookfield Renewable
200 Liberty Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Attention: Jacob Pollack
Fax: 646-992-2470

9 Email: [email protected]

Any party may change the address or number to which notices to such party are to be delivered by providing notice of such change to each other party in the manner set forth above.

SECTION 6. ASSIGNMENT, TERMINATION, AMENDMENT AND GOVERNING LAW This Consent shall be binding upon and benefit the successors and assigns of the parties hereto and their respective successors, transferees and permitted assigns (including without limitation, any enti ty that refinances all or any portion of the obligations under the Financing Agreement). Contracting Party agrees to (a) confirm such continuing obligation in writing upon the reasonable request of Project Company, Collateral Agent, the Secured Parties or any of their respective successors, transferees or assigns, (b) in connection with any tax equity financing of the Project, promptly following the written request of Project Company, deliver an estoppel certificate to any applicable tax equity investor and Collateral Agent representing that the matters set forth in Section 4 above remain true and correct as of such date and (c) cause any successor-in-interest to Contracting Party with respect to its interest in the Contract to assume, in writing in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Collateral Agent, the obligations of such Contracting Party hereunder. Any purported assignment or transfer of the Contract not in conjunc tion with the written instrument of assumption contemplated by the foregoing clause (c) shall be null and void.

No termination, amendment, variation or waiver of any provisions of this Consent shall be effective unless in writing and signed by all of the parties hereto. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Consent and the Contract, the provisions of this Consent shall prevail, and the Contract shall be deemed to be amended accordingly. This Consent shall terminate upon the earlier of (x) the Term Conversion Date (as defined in the Financing Agreement) and (y) the Discharge Date (as defined in the Financing Agreement) ; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Recitals and Sections 2 , 6 and 7 shall survive un til the Discharge Date. This Consent shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

Collateral Agent, Project Company and Contracting Party hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state court sitting in Los Angeles County, California for the purposes of all legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Consent or the transactions contemplated hereby. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such proceeding brought in such a court and any claim that any such proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. To the extent permitted by applicable law, each party hereto irrevocably agrees to the service of process of any of the aforementioned courts in any suit, action or proceeding by the mailing of copies thereof by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to such party at the address referenced in Section 5, such service to be effective upon the date indicated on the postal receipt returned from such party.

SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS
(a) Counterparts. This Consent may be executed in one or more duplicate counterparts, and when executed and delivered by all the parties listed below, shall constitute a single binding agreement. Signatures delivered by facsimile or by PDF shall have the same effect as original signatures.

10 (b) Third Party Beneficiaries . There are no third party beneficiaries to this Consent other than the Secured Parties.
(c) Severability. In case any provision of this Consent, or the obligations of any of the parties hereto, shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or the obligations of the other parties hereto, shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby, and the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to replace such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

SECTION 8. COLLATERAL AGENT
Any corporation or associati on into which Collateral Agent may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated, or any corporation or association resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which Collateral Agent shall be a party, or any corporation or association to which all or substantially all of the corporate trust business of Collateral Agent may be sold or otherwise transferred shall be the successor Collateral Agent hereunder without any further act. In the performance of its obligations hereunder, C ollateral Agent shall be entitled to all of the rights, benefits, protections, indemnities and immunities afforded to it pursuant to the Credit Documents (including to the extent such rights are to be exercised at the direction of the relevant Secured Parties in accordance therewith).

SECTION 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BY PROJECT COMPANY.

Project Company, by its execution hereof, acknowledges and agrees that notwithstanding any term to the contrary in the Contract, Contracting Party has agreed to perform as set forth herein and that none of execution of this Consent, performance by Contracting Party of its obligations hereunder, the exercise of any rights of Contracting Party hereunder, or the acceptance of performance of the Contract by any party other than Project Company shall (i) release Project Company from any obligation of Project Company under the Contract, (ii) constitute a consent by Contracting Party of, or impute any knowledge to, Contracting Party of any specific terms or conditions of the Financing Agreement or any of the Credit Documents, or (iii) except as expressly set forth in this Consent, constitute a waiver by Contracting Party of any of its rights under the Contract. Project Company acknowledges for the benefit of Contracting Party that, except as expressly set forth in this Consent, none of the Credit Documents, or any other document executed in connection therewith alter, amend, modify or impair any provision of the Contract. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

[Signature Page to PPA Consent (City of Victorville)]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto by their officers thereunto duly authorized, have duly executed this Consent as of the date first set forth above.

CITY OF VICTORVILLE,
as Contracting Party

By: _____________________________
Its:

Date:

Attest:

[Signature Page to PPA Consent (City of Victorville)]

AM WIND REPOWER LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
as Project Company

By: _____________________________
Name:

Title:

By: _____________________________
Name:

Title:

[Signature Page to PPA Consent (City of Victorville)]

COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY,
N.A.,
as Collateral Agent

By: _____________________________
Name:

Title:

Attachment C
Estoppel Certificate
(Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 22-007)
Exhibit 2
Estoppel Certificate
-1-

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
This Estoppel Certificate (this “ Estoppel Certificate”), dated as of [_____], 202[__], is provided by the City of Victorville, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (together with its permitted successors and assigns, “ Offtaker”).

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set for th in the Contract (as hereinafter defined).

RECITALS
A. Offtaker and AM Wind Repower LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”) have entered into that certain Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2020 (as further amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof and hereof, the “ Contract”), pursuant to which Seller will (i) develop, construct, install, test, own, operate and maintain an approximately 27 MW wind-powered electric generating facility located in Riverside County, California known as the Alta Mesa Project (the “ Project”) and (ii) sell to Offtaker the Product.

B. Pursuant to that certain Equity Capital Contribution Agreement, dated as of [_____], 2022 (the “ECCA”), to be entered into by and among Cali fornia Wind Holding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), Wells Fargo Central Pacific Holdings, Inc., a California corporation (“Wells” or the “ Tax Equity Investor”), and California Wind Member LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on the Funding Date (as defined in the ECCA), Wells will make a tax equity investment in the Company, which owns 100% of the membership interests in Seller.

C. Pursuant to the ECCA, the Tax Equity Investor requires that this Estoppel Certificate be delivered as a condition precedent to its investment in the Company.

AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, Offtaker hereby agrees as follows:

1. Offtaker acknowledges that the acquisition by the Tax Equity Investor of membership interests in the Company, the direct parent of Seller, does not require the consent of Offtaker and does not otherwise cause a breach or default of the Contract.

2. If (i) Seller defaults in the performance of any of its obligations under the Contract or (ii) upon the occurrence or non -occurrence of any event or condition under the Contract which would immediately or with the passage of any applicable grace period or the giving of notice, or both, enable Offtaker to termi nate or suspend its performance under the Contract (a “ Contract Default ”), Offtaker will not terminate or suspend its performance under the Contract until it first gives written notice of such Contract Default to the Tax Equity Investor at the address list ed in -2-

Exhibit A of this Estoppel Certificate (the date of such notice, the “Date of Notice”) and affords the Tax Equity Investor the right to cure such Contract Default in accordance with the following: (a) commencing as of the Date of Notice, the Tax Equity Investor shall have the same period of time to cure the breach or default that Seller is entitled to under the Contract plus an additional period of five (5) Business Days if such default is the failure to pay amounts to Offtaker which are due and payable by Seller under the Contract (a “Monetary Default”); and (b) commencing as of the Date of Notice, for any breach or default under the Contract other than a Monetary Default, the Tax Equity Investor shall have the same period of time to cure the breach o r default that Seller is entitled to under the Contract plus an additional period of thirty (30) days, so long as the Tax Equity Investor promptly commences and diligently pursues the cure.

Offtaker hereby represents and warrants that as of the date of this Estoppel Certificate:

1. It (i) is a municipal corporation duly formed and validly existing under the laws of the state of its organization, (ii) is duly qualified, authorized to do business and in good standing in every jurisdiction necessary to perform it s obligations in this Estoppel Certificate and under the Contract, and (iii) has all requisite power and authority to enter into and to perform its obligations in this Estoppel Certificate and under the Contract, and to carry out the terms hereof and there of and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby;

2. The execution, delivery and performance of this Estoppel Certificate and the Contract have been duly authorized by all necessary action on its part and do not require any approvals, material filings with, or consents of any entity or person which have not previously been obtained or made;

3. The Contract is in full force and effect, and each of this Estoppel Certificate and the Contract has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of Offtaker by the appropriate officers of Offtaker, and constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of Offtaker, enforceable against Offtaker in accordance with its terms, except as the enforceability thereof may be limited by (a) bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws of general application affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and (b) general equitable principles (whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law);

4. The execution, delivery and performance by it of this Estoppel Certificate and the Contract, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby, will not result in any violation of, breach of or default under any term of (i) its formation or governance documents, or (ii) any con tract or agreement to which it is a party or by which it or its property is bound, or of any legal requirements presently in effect having applicability to it, the violation, breach or default of which could have a material adverse effect on its ability to perform its obligations under this Estoppel Certificate or the Contract; -3-

5. (i) Neither Offtaker nor, to Offtaker’s knowledge, Seller, is in default of any of its obligations under the Contract and (ii) there exists no event or condition that could, either immediately or with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, be reasonably expected to entitle Seller or Offtaker to terminate or suspend its obligations under the Contract;

6. As of the date hereof, the Contract represents the entire agreement between Offtaker and Seller with respect to the subject matter thereof and the Contract has not been assigned or amended, supplemented, or modified, other than the automatic extension of the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date pursuant to the notice provided by Seller to Offtaker dated April 16, 2021 and the subsequent automatic extension of the Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date pursuant to the notice provided by Seller to Offtaker dated November 2, 2021;

7. Seller does no t owe any payments to the Offtaker with respect to liquidated damages, warranty, or indemnity claims;

8. All representations and warranties by the Offtaker under the Contract are true and correct as of the date hereof;

9. As of the date hereof, (i) there is no pending or, to Offtaker’s knowledge, threatened dispute or legal proceeding between Offtaker and Seller, and (ii) there is no pending or, to Offtaker’s knowledge, threatened action or proceeding affecting Offtaker before any court, governmental agency or a rbitrator that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the ability of Offtaker to perform its obligations under the Contract, or that purports to affect the legality, validity or enforceability of the Contract;

10. Offtaker has no existing counterclaims, offsets or defenses against Seller under the Contract;

11. Offtaker is not aware of any event, act, circumstance or condition constituting an event of force majeure under the Contract;

12. Without limiting paragraphs 13 and 14 below, the Off taker’s obligations to make payments under the Agreement are supported by, but are not limited exclusively to, the revenues from the electric utility operations of the City of Victorville Utilities Department.

13. There are no restrictions regarding the source of funds that Offtaker may draw from in order to pay amounts due under the Contract and payments under the Contract are obligations of Offtaker.

14. Offtaker’s obligations to make payments under the Contract are unsubordinated obligations and such payments ar e operating and maintenance costs (or similar designation) of Offtaker, and as such are in the category of costs that enjoy first priority of payment at all times under any and all bond ordinances or indentures to -4-

which Offtaker is a party, and such gen eral undertakings are permitted by Article XI of the California Constitution, all other relevant constitutional, organic or other governing documents and any other Law presently in effect having applicability to Offtaker.

[Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank.]

Signature Page to City of Victorville PPA Estoppel

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , Offtaker, by its own officer duly authorized, has duly executed this Estoppel Certificate as of the date first set forth above.

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
a municipal corporation,

By:

Name:

Title:

EXHIBIT A

TAX EQUITY INVESTOR NOTICE DETAILS
Wells:

Wells Fargo Central Pacific Holdings, Inc.
c/o Wells Fargo Commercial Capital
Attention: Renewable Energy Portfolio Management
MAC A0119-184
333 Market Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: [email protected]
and with a copy to:

Wells Fargo Legal Group
Capital Markets Counsel
MAC J0161-245
150 E 42nd Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Email: [email protected]
Item Number: 4
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: January 18, 2022
Submitted By:

Scott Webb, City Planner

Subject:

Subordination request for Residential Rehabilitation Program Case No. 20-16-05 (16696 Joshua St., Victorville, CA 92395)
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council take the following actions regarding Residential Rehabilitation Program Case No. 20-16-05:
(1) Approve the Subordination Agreement; and
(2) Authorize the execution of the Subordination Agreement by the Deputy City Manager.

Fiscal Impact:

No impact to fiscal year 2021-2022 budget.

Background:

The Residential Rehabilitation Program (RRP) is designed to promote local beautification, increase property values, boost curb appeal, and correct any Health and Safety Code, Building Code or Victorville Municipal Code violations. The Residential Rehabilitation Program is provided through Community Development Block Grant funding as a deferred payment loan at 3% interest in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $15,000. Loans provided are secured against the property for the term of ten (10) years. The loan can be forgiven should participants remain the property owner and occupy the dwelling as their principal residence for no less than the programs 10-year term.

Additionally, for the purposes of refinancing a property’s home loan to a lower interest rate and/or a lower housing payment, RRP Participants are permitted to request a loan subordination provided the request complies with the RRP guidelines. 2 3
7 0
Discussion:

On June 15, 2020, the RRP Participant received a loan in the amount of $12,605.00 to aid in the rehabilitation of a home located at 16696 Joshua St., Victorville, CA 92395.

Rehabilitation improvements included new windows, a new water heater, repair of a side gate and repair of a chain link fence, with all items completed using an RRP loan. The RRP Participant has now requested approval of the subject Subordination Agreement regarding their RRP loan in order to allow for a refinance of their primary loan and two CalHFA (California Housing Finance Agency) loans that were used to purchase the home.

The RRP Program’s guidelines for considering approval of a Subordination Agreement include the following:
• The refinance does not include any cash-back to borrower for any purpose; • The homeowner must have and continue to live in the home as their primary residence; • The new loan must reduce the interest rate and/or the housing payment; • The new loan must be a fixed rate with level payment plan; and • The new loan amount cannot exceed the payoff and reasonable closing costs.

The subordination request proposes the reduction of the primary loan interest rate from

4.375% to 3.25% and the reduction of the mortgage payment from $953.95 to $802.85 with no cash-out. Based on this information and confirmation of compliance with the noted program guidelines, the proposal meets the City’s subordination requirements.

Additionally, the refinance would maintain and improve housing affordability for the RRP Participant.

Therefore, staff is requesting approval of the attached Subordination Agreement that will allow a new first mortgage loan to be recorded against the subject property, which will replace the existing 4.375% mortgage loan with a 3.25% mortgage loan and maintain the City’s RRP loan in second position.

Staff remains available for any questions or comments.

Attachments: A. Subordination Agreement
B. Original Deed of Trust and Promissory Note
C. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions

ATTACHMENT A

SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
P.O. BOX 5001
VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-5001

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Attn: JENELE DAVIDSON
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S
USE
Exempt from Recording Fees Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 27383 APN: 0477-142-01-0000

SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT
NOTICE: THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT RESULTS IN YOUR SECURITY

INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BECOMING SUBJECT TO AND OF

LOWER PRIORITY THAN THE LIEN OF SOME OTHER OR LATER
SECURITY INSTRUMENT.

THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is hereby entered into as of January 19, 2021 by and among Alicia Valencia Lopez, owner(s) of the land hereinafter described (“Owner”), the City of Victorville, a Municipal corporation (the “City”) and Rocket Mortgage LLC., ISAOA (“Lender”). Owner, the City and Lender are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Victorville in San Bernardino County as more specifically described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, in connection with the Residential Rehabilitation Program Owner executed that certain promissory note dated June 15, 2020 in the amount of Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Five Dollars and No/Cents ($12,605) (“Promissory Note”) in favor of the City of Victorville which is secured by that certain Deed of Trust for the benefit of the City, dated June 15, 2020 and recorded on April 28, 2021 as Instrument No. 2021- 0198421 in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino, California (“Deed of Trust”);
WHEREAS, in connection with the Residential Rehabilitation Program, Owner executed that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in favor of the City dated as of June 15, 2020 and recorded on April 28, 2021 as Instrument No. 2021-0198423 in the Official Records of the County of San Bernardino, California.

WHEREAS, Owner has or will execute a promissory note, in favor of Lender, payable with interest and upon the terms and conditions described therein (the “Lender Note”), to be secured by a deed of trust is to be recorded concurrently herewith (the “Lender Deed of Trust”);
WHEREAS, it is a condition precedent to obtaining Lender’s loan that the Lender Deed of Trust shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge upon the Property, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust; WHEREAS, Lender is willing to make Lender’s loan, provided the Lender Deed of Trust securing the same is a lien or charge upon the Property prior and superior to the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust, and provided that Deed of Trust will specifically and unconditionally subordinate the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust to the lien or charge of the Lender Deed of Trust;
WHEREAS, the City and Lender have agreed and required as condition of making the Lender loan and entering into this Agreement that the order of priority of their respective liens against the Property be as follows: (1) Declaration, (2) Lender Deed of Trust, and (3) Deed of Trust;
WHEREAS, the City is willing to specifically and unconditionally subordinate the Deed of Trust to achieve and maintain the order of priority listed in the immediately preceding recital; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the Parties hereto and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, and in order to induce Lender to make the Lender’s loan, it is hereby declared, understood and agreed as follows:
(1) That the Lender Deed of Trust securing the Lender Note, shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge on the Property, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lender agrees that it will not make any amendment to the terms of the Lender Note or any other documents or obligations secured by the Lender Deed of Trust which has the effect of increasing the amount secured thereby or the interest due thereunder, or increasing the term of the Lender Note, without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld or granted in the City’s sole but reasonable discretion.
(2) That Lender would not make its loan above described without this Agreement. (3) The Parties hereto further acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the City’s consent to subordinate the Deed of Trust pursuant to this Agreement, the Declaration shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge on the Property, prior and superior to the lien or charge of the Lender Deed of Trust.
(4) That this Agreement shall be the whole and only agreement with regard to the subordination of the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust to the lien or charge of the Lender Deed of Trust and shall supersede and cancel, but only insofar as would affect the priority between the deeds of trust hereinbefore specifically described, any prior agreement as to such subordination including, but not limited to, those provisions, if any, contained in the Deed of Trust, which provide for the subordination of the lien or charge thereof to another deed or deeds of trust or to another mortgage or mortgages.
(5) The City agrees and acknowledges that:
(a) The City consents to and approves (i) all provisions of the Lender Deed of Trust and the Lender Note, and (ii) all agreements, including, but not limited to, any loan or escrow agreements, between Owner and Lender for the disbursement of the proceeds of Lender's loan; (b) Lender in making disbursements pursuant to any such agreement is under no obligation or duty to, nor has Lender represented that it will, see to the application of such proceeds by the person or persons to whom Lender disburses such proceeds and any application or use of such proceeds for purposes other than those provided for in such agreement or agreements shall not defeat the subordination herein made in whole or in part;
(c) The City intentionally and unconditionally waives, relinquishes and subordinates the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust in favor of the lien or charge upon the Property of the Lender Deed of Trust and understands that in reliance upon, and in consideration of, this waiver, relinquishment and subordination, specific loans and advances are being and will be made and, as part and parcel thereof, specific monetary and other obligations are being and will be entered into which would not be made or entered into but for said reliance upon this waiver, relinquishment and subordination; and (d) An endorsement has been placed upon the Promissory Note that the Deed of Trust has by this Agreement been subordinated to the lien or charge of the Lender Deed of Trust.
(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Lender agrees as follows:
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default under the Lender Deed of Trust and other Lender loan documents, and prior to completion of a foreclosure sale thereunder, Lender shall promptly notify the City via written notice delivered by certified or registered U.S. Mail to 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville CA 92392 of the occurrence of such event of default (“Bank Notice of Default”), which notification shall be provided to the City within the time provided pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924b(b)(1), provided, however, that the City’s receipt of such notice shall be the date of actual delivery as shown by the addressee’s registry or certification of receipt (or refusal to accept delivery);
(b) The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, during the cure periods which apply to the Owner pursuant to the Lender loan documents to cure Owner’s default relative to the Lender loan and Lender shall accept any such cure and Lender agrees that Lender will not cause an acceleration (or will cause a de-acceleration) of the indebtedness or other obligations of the Owner under the Lender loan documents by reason of the default or breach which has been cured by the City; and
(c) After a default under the Lender Deed of Trust and/or other Lender loan documents, but prior to a foreclosure sale or deed in lieu assignment of the Property, the City shall have the right (for itself or any assignee of the City), but not the obligation, to purchase the Property from the Owner and pay all amounts due and owing under the Lender loan documents, and Lender agrees that the acquisition of title to the Property by the City (or such assignee) shall not constitute an accelerating sale or transfer or an event of default pursuant to the Lender loan documents and that upon receipt of such payment Lender shall immediately terminate, release, discharge and reconvey the Lender Deed of Trust and any other liens or encumbrances of Lender on the Property.
(7) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The signature pages of one or more counterpart copies may be removed from such counterpart copies and all attached to the same copy of this Agreement, which, with all attached signature pages, shall be deemed to be an original Agreement.

NOTICE: THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT CONTAINS A PROVISION WHICH

ALLOWS THE PERSON OBLIGATED ON YOUR REAL PROPERTY

SECURITY TO OBTAIN A LOAN, A PORTION OF WHICH MAY BE

EXPENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN IMPROVEMENT OF THE
LAND.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT, PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS

SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES CONSULT WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS WITH RESPECT THERETO.

CITY OF VICTORVILLE OWNER
Jenele Davidson Alicia Valencia Lopez
Deputy City Manager
Date:_____________
LENDER
Rocket Mortgage LLC., ISAOA
By:______________________
Its:______________________
(ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED)
EXHIBIT “A”

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 21 OF TRACT NO. 3708, IN THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 50, PAGE(S) 60 AND 61, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 0477-142-01
16696 Joshua St.

Victorville, CA 92395

ATTACHMENT B

ORIGINAL DEED OF TRUST
& PROMISSORY NOTE

ATTACHMENT C

DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,

CONDITIONS AND

RESTRICTIONS

Item Number: 5
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: January 18, 2022
Submitted By:

Brian Gengler, City Engineer

Subject:

Notice of Completion – Industrial Boulevard and Silica Drive Improvement Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council accept as complete and approve the Notice of Completion for the Industrial Boulevard and Silica Drive Improvement.

Fiscal Impact:

This action will result in a fiscal impact of $207,036.97. Retention in the amount of five percent was withheld from each pay estimate during construction for a total of $207,036.97. Retention will be released after City Council approval and the recording of the Notice of Completion.

Budget Account Number: 410-20110-60079 – Water Fund $ 11,405.75 221-20110-60079 – Roads SB1 Fund $112,931.22
200-20110-60079 – Street Light Fund $ 1,850.00
221-20110-60076 – Roads SB1 Fund $ 80,850.00
An additional appropriation is not required. There are sufficient funds to cover the planned expenses.

Background:

On May 4, 2021, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Co., in the amount of $4,532,000.00 for the Industrial Boulevard and Silica Drive Improvement Project. This project was designed in-house by Engineering Department staff.

The purpose of this project was to reconstruct Industrial Blvd. and Silica Drive from the intersection of Bear Valley Road and Industrial Blvd. to Hesperia Road and Silica Drive.

Please refer to Attachment A, a location map.
2 3
6 0
The project scope included full depth reconstruction of the road structural section with new asphalt concrete, compacted base and subbase soils. A metal pipe storm drain under Silica Drive was replaced with a new reinforced concrete storm drain. Additional storm water catch basins were constructed to improve drainage along the road segments. Other work included replacement of concrete curb and gutter, drive approaches, sidewalk and intersection curb ramps to comply with current standards. Minor alterations were made to the current water pipeline system to meet current separation requirements from the new storm drain system crossings.

Discussion:

The project was completed at a final contract price of $4,140,739.58. The project was substantially completed on October 29, 2021. Thirty-five days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion, the City can release the final retention monies withheld on this project, provided there are no claims or unreleased liens against the contract. The one- year warranty on the improvements began the date the work was substantially complete.

Staff recommends that the Honorable City Council accept as complete and approve the Notice of Completion for the Industrial Boulevard and Silica Drive Improvement.

Staff remains available for any questions that City Council may have.

Attachments: A. Location Map
B. Notice of Completion

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
ATTN: CITY CLERK
P.O. BOX 5001
VICTORVILLE, CA 92393-5001

Recording of this document is fee-exempt under Government SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE Code Section 6103. No Documentary Transfer Tax is due on the document pursuant to Revenue Taxation Code Section 11922

PUBLIC CONTRACT

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is OWNER or agent of the OWNER of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described.

2. The FULL NAME of the OWNER is CITY OF VICTORVILLE

3. The FULL ADDRESS of the OWNER is 14343 CIVIC DRIVE, VICTORVILLE, CA 92392 A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was COMPLETED OCTOBER 29, 2021

4. The work of improvement completed is described as follows: INDUSTRIAL BLVD AND SILICA DR ROAD

IMPROVEMENT

5. The NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, if any, for such work of improvement is :

SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING CO.

6. The street address of said property is INDUSTRIAL BLVD AND SILICA DR, VICTORVILLE CA

7. Assessor’s Parcel Number: N/A

8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of VICTORVILLE, County of SAN BERNARDINO, State of CALIFORNIA.

Verification of NON-INDIVIDUAL owner: I, Brian W. Gengler, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the City Engineer of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property described in the above notice; that I have read said notice, that I know and understand the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct.

at Victorville, California.

Date Brian W. Gengler, City Engineer

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
Item Number: 6
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: January 18, 2022
Submitted By:

Brian Gengler, City Engineer

Subject:

Securities Substitution for Tract Map No. 17316
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc.;
(2) Accept new securities for the outstanding public improvements; (3) Release the existing Subdivision Improvement Agreement with American Housing Group, Inc.; and
(4) Release the existing securities with American Housing Group, Inc.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Background:

Tract Map No. 17316 (hereinafter called Tract 17316) is a 36-lot, single family subdivision, located at the northeast corner of Ottawa Street and Arrowhead Drive. Please refer to Attachment A, a vicinity map. The public improvements for Tract 17316 have not been started; the property was only rough graded some years ago. Since the subdivision recorded on July 30, 2007; the 36-lots have been vacant. The original developer, American Housing Group, Inc., entered into a subdivision improvement agreement with the City and provided bonds as security for the public improvements.

Discussion:

Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. (Richmond) is the current owner of Tract 17316. As a result of this purchase, Richmond is required to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) and to provide substitute securities in accordance with Victorville Municipal Code §17.64.060. Upon receipt of the new securities, the existing 2 3
6 8
SIA and securities can be released. The new SIA and securities are required for the outstanding public improvements which include the following:
Grading
Water
Sewer
Street improvements for the tract interior and the perimeter roads of Ottawa Street and Arrowhead Drive
Landscaping and irrigation (LMAD) improvements along Arrowhead Drive Staff remains available for any questions that City Council may have.

Attachments: A. Vicinity Map
B. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
C. New Securities
D. Existing Securities
E. Existing Subdivision Agreement
F. Subdivision Agreement Release
Attachment A
Vicinity Map

Attachment B
Subdivision Improvement
Agreement
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY

CITY OF VICTORVILLE

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
ENGINEERING DEPT .
14343 CIVIC DR.

VICTORVILLE , CA 92392

APN 3090-071-05 to 40
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER ’S USE

RECORDING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS FEE -EXEMPT
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 6103, 27383, AND 27388.1(2)( D)

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Tract Map No. 17316

THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (“ Agreement ”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Victorville, a California municipal corpora tion and charter City, hereinafter referred to as “ City ”, and RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF MARYLAND INC., a Marylan d Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Subdivider ”. City and Subdivider are sometimes hereinafter r eferred to individually as a “ Party ” and collectively referred to as the “ Parties .”

RECITALS

WHEREAS , this Agreement is executed pursuant to the provis ions of the California Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410 et seq . (the “ Map Act ”) and the ordinances and regulations of the City relating to the filing, approval, and recordation of subdivisio n maps, including without limitation, Title 17 and the applicable provisions of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code (the “ VMC ”). The Map Act and the aforementioned ordinances and regulations of the City are collecti vely referred to hereinafter as the “ Subdivision Laws ” and Subdivider acknowledges familiarity with said Subdivision Laws and hereby agrees to comply therewith; and

WHEREAS , Subdivider is currently the record fee owner of that certain real property situated in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as m ore particularly described in Exhibit A, attached h ereto (hereinafter called the “ Subdivision ”); and

WHEREAS, the final subdivision or parcel map, tentatively a pproved as TT-05-014, as Tract Map No. 17316, as more particularly depicted in Exhibit B attached he reto (hereinafter called the “ Map ”), was recorded in Map Book 330, Pages 13, through 16, inclusive in the office of the recorder of San Bernardino County, California (the “ County Recorder ”); and

WHEREAS , Subdivider has requested approval of the Map prio r to the construction and completion of the associated required public improvements which are a part of, appurtenant to, or outside of the Subdivi sion designated in the Map, including installation of al l streets, highways, public ways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm and other drainage facilities, public utility facil ities, recreation facilities, median and parkway la ndscaping and irrigation, and such other public improvements requ ired by the Subdivision Laws and/or the conditions of approval imposed on the Map, as set forth on said Map and in the City’s Planning Commission Resolution No. P-05 -109, (collectively the “ Conditions of Approval ”); and

WHEREAS , the public improvements described and conditioned as set forth in the preceding recital (collectivel y hereinafter the “ Required Improvements ”), shall be constructed and installed in accordanc e with the plans and specifications for said Required Improvements, whic h plans and specifications are now on file in the o ffice of the City Engineer of City (“ City Engineer ”).
2 NOW THEREFORE , for and in consideration of the approval of the M ap and of the acceptance of the dedications therein offered, and in order to ensure satisfactory construction and installation by Subd ivider of the Required Improvements under the Subdivision Laws, the current costs of which have been estimated and included in the attached Exhibit C (the “ Engineer’s Cost Estimate ”), the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1. Performance of Work

Subdivider will do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, at Subdivider’s own expense, in a g ood and workmanlike manner, and furnish all required materi als, all under the direction and to the satisfactio n of the City Engineer, all of the construction and other related work necessary to install the Required Improvement s for this Subdivision in accordance with the plans and specifications on file as herein specified, or with any changes required or ordered by said Engineer, which in his opinion a re necessary or required to complete the work. All such construction, installation and other related work shall be performed at Subdivider's sole expense.

2. Work: Places and Grades to be Approved by Engin eer

All work for said Required Improvements is to be do ne to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and at the places, with the materials, in the manner, and at the grade s, all as shown upon the plans and specifications t herefor, heretofore approved by the City Engineer and which are now on file in his office, (hereinafter collect ively the “Approved Plans ”). Any actual work of surveying shall be performed by the Subdivider’s engineer.

3. Specifications

(a) The Required Improvements and work embraced her ein shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, as adopted by the Greenbook Committee, current edition, insofar as they may app ly (hereinafter the “ Greenbook Specifications ”), and the City of Victorville Standard Specifications for Public I mprovements (hereinafter the “ City Standard Specifications ”).

Whenever in the Greenbook Specifications the follow ing terms are used, they shall be understood to mea n the following:

(1) Agency: City of Victorville, California.

(2) Board: Victorville City Council

(3) Engineer: Whenever the term is not qualified, s hall mean the City Engineer of the City of Victorville, California acting either directly or through his pr operly authorized agents, each agent acting only within the scope of the authority delegated to him.

(4) Laboratory: The laboratory to be approved by th e City of Victorville to test materials and work involved in the construction provided for under this agreement.

(b) In case of conflict between the Greenbook Speci fications and the City Standard Specifications, the City Standard Specifications shall prevail.

(c) In case of conflict between the Greenbook Speci fications, the City Standard Specifications, and the Approved Plans and this Agreement, the Approved Pla ns and this Agreement shall take precedence over an d be used in lieu of such conflicting portions of the Greenbook Specifications or City Standard Specifications.

4. Work: Time for Completion

The City hereby fixes the time for the completion of said work to be within two (2) years after the date this Agreement is fully executed by all Parties and is recorded wi th the County Recorder. (the “ Completion Date ”). At least two (2) calendar days prior to the commencement of work hereunder, Subdivider shall notify City Engineer o f the date fixed by Subdivider for commencement thereof, so that City Engineer shall be able to provide services of inspection.

3 5. Time of Essence - Extension

Time is of the essence in this Agreement; provided, that in the event good cause is shown therefor, the City Manager or the City Council may extend the Completion Date. Any such extension may be granted without notice to the Subdivider’s surety, and extensions so granted shall not relieve the surety’s liability on the bond to secure the faithful performance of this Agreement. The City Manager or the City Council shall be the sole and final judge as to whether or not good cause has been shown to entitle Subdivider to an extension. All references to the City Manager in this Agreement shall be deemed to include his/her duly authorized designees.

6. Repairs and Replacements

Subdivider shall replace or repair, or have replace d or repaired, as the case may be, all pipes and mo numents shown on the Map which have been destroyed or damag ed. Subdivider shall also replace or repair, or ha ve replaced or repaired, all public improvements, public utility facilities, and surveying or subdivision monuments which are destroyed or damaged in the performance of any work under this Agreement. Subdivider shall bear t he entire cost of replacement or repairs of any and all publi c or private utility property damaged or destroyed in the performance of any work done under this Agreement, whether such property is owned by the United States or any agency thereof, or the State of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by the City, or any public or private utility corporation, or by any combinati on of such owners. Any such repair or replacement s hall be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval, of the C ity Engineer. In lieu of making the aforementioned replacements and repairs to any property damaged or destroyed by the work, Subdivider may pay to the owner(s) of said property, the entire cost of such replacement or repair.

7. Permits: Compliance with Law

Subdivider shall, at Subdivider’s expense, obtain a ll necessary permits and licenses for the construct ion of the Required Improvements, give all necessary notices, and pay all fees and taxes required by law. Subdivider agrees to procure, at his expense, any necessary permits r equired for the opening of any State or county road s or easements outside the jurisdiction of City.

8. Superintendence by Subdivider

Subdivider shall give personal superintendence to t he work on said Required Improvements, or have a co mpetent foreman or superintendent, satisfactory to the City Engineer, on the work at all times during progress, with authority to act for Subdivider.

9. Inspection by City

Subdivider shall at all times maintain proper facil ities, and provide safe access for inspection by City, to all parts of the work, and to the shops wherein the work is in preparation.

10. Contract Security

(a) Concurrently with the execution hereof, Subdivi der shall furnish to City securities in the types a nd amounts specified below, which are based upon the a pproved Engineer’s Cost Estimate for completion of the Required Improvements, as more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto:

(1) Performance security in an amount equal to at l east one hundred percent (100%) of the approved Engineer’s Cost Estimate as security for the faithful performance of this Agreement.

(2) Labor and materials security in an amount equal to at least fifty percent (50%) of the Engineer’s Cost Estimate as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and furnishing materials in the construction of this tract, including any cl aims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the California Civil Code.

4 (3) Monument security in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the total Engineer’s Cost Estimate for the installation of survey monuments, to guarantee and secure the placement of such monuments.

(b) The securities specified above shall be in the form of cash deposits, an irrevocable letter of cre dit which meets the requirements of VMC Section 17.64.0 60(a)(3), or bonds provided by a corporate surety a dmitted by the California Department of Insurance to transa ct surety insurance business in California (with a Best’s Insurance Guide rating of no less than A-) and written on such forms as may be provided by State statute (Map Act Sections 66499.1 and 66499.2) for such purposes and approved by the City, or in such other form as may be provided for by law and satisfactory to City.

11. Defense, Indemnification, and Hold-Harmless Agreement

(a) To the fullest extent permitted by law, Subdivi der agrees to and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and elective and appointive boards from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, including property damage, personal injury, including death, costs, including attorney fees, and liability of any kind or nature directly or indirectly arising out of or in any way connected with performance under this Agreement and/or the construction of the Required Improvements by the Subdivider, its contr actors or subcontractors, or of any person directly or indire ctly employed by, or acting as agent for the Subdiv ider, its contractors or subcontractors, save and except those matters arising from the sole, active negligence of the City.

(b) This defense, indemnification, and hold harmles s provision shall extend to claims, losses, damage, injury, costs, including attorney fees, and liabili ty for injuries occurring after completion of the c onstruction of the Required Improvements as well as during constructio n, and shall apply regardless of whether or not the City has prepared, supplied or approved the plans and/or specifications for the Required Improvements or has inspected or accepted the same.

(c) Acceptance of insurance required under this Agr eement shall not relieve Subdivider from liability under this defense, indemnification, and hold harmless provision. Subdivider’s obligation to indemnify shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, an d shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by City.

(d) The Parties intend that this Section 11 shall b e broadly construed to effectuate its purpose.

12. Subdivider’s Insurance

(a) All insurance requirements contained in this Ag reement are applicable to any contract entered into by Subdivider and/or any of Subdivider’s contractor s, subcontractors, agents and/or employees. Subdiv ider shall not commence any work under this Agreement until Su bdivider has obtained all insurance required under this Section, nor shall Subdivider allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work on any contract o r subcontract until all similar insurance required of the contractor or subcontractor shall have been so obtained and approved. Subdivider shall provide the City with n ot less than thirty (30) days’ notice prior to the cancellation, reduction or termination of any insurance coverages required by this section.

(1) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance . Subdivider shall procure and maintain at its own expense, during the initial term of this Agreement (and during any extension periods), Comprehensive General Liability insurance (includin g contractual liability), of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, death, loss, or damage resulting from the wrongful or negligent acts by Subdivider or its officers, employees, serv ants, volunteers, and agents and independent contractors.

(2) Commercial Vehicle (Automobile) Liability Insurance . Subdivider shall further procure and maintain, at its own expense, during the initial te rm of this Agreement (and during any extension periods) Commercial Vehicle Liability insurance cov ering personal injury and property damage, of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) comb ined single limit, covering any vehicle utilized 5 by Subdivider or its officers, employees, servants, volunteers, agents and independent contractors in performing the services required by this Agreement.

(3) Workers’ Compensation Insurance . Subdivider shall procure and maintain at its own expense, during the initial term of this Agreement (and duri ng any extension periods), Workers’ Compensation insurance, providing coverage as requi red by the California State Workers’ Compensation Law. If any class of employees employ ed by the Subdivider pursuant to this Agreement is not protected by the California State Workers’ Compensation Law, Subdivider shall provide adequate insurance for the protection of such employees to the satisfaction of the City.

(4) Additional Named Insured . Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in any required insurance policies or any subsequent endorsements attached th ereto, all insurance policies, except for the Workers’ Compensation policy, shall be endorsed to name the City and its officers, employees, servants, volunteers, agents and independent contra ctors, including, without limitation, the City Attorney, as Additional Insureds.

(5) Waiver of Subrogation Rights . Subdivider shall require the carriers of all req uired insurance policies to waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, employees, servants, volunteers, agents, and independent contractors and subcontractors. Each policy of insurance shall be endorsed to reflect such waiver.

(6) Proof of Insurance Coverage; Required Endorsements . Subdivider shall secure from a good and responsible company or companies authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California, the policies of insurance required by t his Agreement and furnish to the City Clerk certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage, and the following policy endorsements, at least one (1) business day prior to commencement of any work required under this Agreement.

(A) The policies and certificates of insurance shal l be endorsed to provide that in the event of cancellation or amendment of any required insurance policy for any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by mail, postage prepaid, not less than thirty (30) days before the cancellation or amendment is effective. In the cas e of cancellation for non-payment, ten (10) days advance written notice shall be given.

(B) Each policy and certificate of insurance shall be endorsed to provide that the policy shall not be terminated or expire without first providing thirty (30) days written notice to the City of such termination or expiration.

(C) Each policy and certificate of insurance shall be endorsed to provide that the policy will be maintained throughout the initial term (and during any extension periods) of this Agreement.

(D) The Comprehensive General Liability and Commerc ial Vehicle liability policies shall be endorsed to contain the following provision: “For a ny claims related to this Agreement, Subdivider’s coverage shall be primary with respect to the City. Any insurance maintained by the City shall be in excess of Subdivider’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.”

(b) All requirements herein provided shall appear e ither in the body of the insurance policies or as endorsements and shall specifically bind the insurance carrier.

13. Title to Required Improvements; Risk of Loss

Title to, and ownership of all Required Improvement s constructed hereunder by Subdivider shall vest ab solutely in City upon completion and acceptance of such Require d Improvements by City. Until such time as the Req uired Improvements are accepted by City, Subdivider shall be responsible for and bear the risk of loss to an y of the Required Improvements constructed or installed and shall be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to such Required Improvements. Neither City , nor any of its agents, officers, or employees sha ll be liable 6 or responsible for any accident, loss, or damage, r egardless of cause, happening or occurring to the R equired Improvements prior to the completion by Subdivider and acceptance of same by City.

14. Repair or Reconstruction of Defective Work

If, within a period of one year after final accepta nce of the work performed under this Agreement, any structure or part of any structure furnished and/or installed or constructed, or caused to be installed or construc ted by Subdivider, or any of the work done under this Agre ement, fails to fulfill any of the requirements of this Agreement or the specifications referred to herein, Subdivider shall without delay and without any cost to City, repair or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or structure. Should Subdivider fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirem ent, or should the exigencies of the case require r epairs or replacements to be made before Subdivider can be no tified, City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and Subd ivider shall pay to City the actual cost of such re pairs plus fifteen percent (15%).

15. Subdivider not Agent of City

Neither Subdivider nor any of Subdivider’s agents o r contractors are or shall be considered to be agen ts of City in connection with the performance of Subdivider’s obligations under this Agreement.

16. Cost of Engineering and Inspection

Subdivider shall pay City in accordance with Title 17 of the VMC, for all engineering, inspection, and other services furnished by City in connection with the Subdivision.

17. Default; Notice

The following events shall constitute a default under this Agreement: If Subdivider refuses or fails to prosecute the work on the Required Improvements, or any part ther eof, with such diligence as will ensure its complet ion within the time specified, or any extension thereof, or fa ils to complete the Required Improvements within su ch time; if Subdivider should be adjudged a bankrupt, or Subdiv ider should make a general assignment for the benef it of Subdivider’s creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of Subdivider’s insolvency; or if Subdivider or any of Subdivider’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees should violate any of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of Subdivider’s default, the City may serve written notice upon Subdivider and Subdivider’s surety of the default under this Agreement. Subdivi der shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of wr itten notice by City to cure any such default.

18. Breach of Agreement; Performance by Surety or City

(a) In the event Subdivider is in default under thi s Agreement, and the applicable cure period set forth in Section 17 hereof has expired without such default having been cured by Subdivider, Subdivider shall be deemed to be in breach of this Agreement and the City may thereafter deliver a notice of breach to Subdivider’s surety, and such surety shall have the duty to take over and co mplete the work on the Required Improvements; provi ded, however, that if the surety within fifteen (15) day s after the serving of such notice of breach upon i t does not give the City written notice of the surety’s intent to take over the performance of the Agreement, or does not commence performance thereof within fifteen (15) days after notice to the City of such election, then the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contra ct, or by any other method the City may deem advisa ble, for the account and at the expense of the Subdivider, a nd the Subdivider’s surety shall be liable to the C ity for any excess cost or damages incurred by the City. In suc h event, the City, without liability for so doing, may take possession of and utilize in completing the work su ch materials, appliances, plants or other property belonging to Subdivider as may be on the site of the work and ne cessary therefor. The remedy provided by this parag raph is in addition to, and not in lieu of, other remedies available to the City. The City reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or in equity for a breach of Subdivider’s obligations under this Agreement.

(b) In addition to any other remedy the City may ha ve, a breach of this Agreement by the Subdivider may result in the Subdivision being reverted to acr eage and shall further constitute consent to the fi ling by the City 7 of a notice of violation against all the lots in the Subdivision. Subdivider agrees that the choice of remedy or remedies for Subdivider’s breach shall be in the discretion of the City. If the form of contract security is other than a bond, the City, after giving notice of breach of the Agreemen t, may proceed to collect against the contract secu rity in the manner provided by law and by the terms of the security instrument.

(c) The failure of City to take an enforcement acti on with respect to a default, or to declare a default or breach, shall not constitute a waiver of that defau lt or breach, or any subsequent default or breach o f Subdivider.

Any failure by the City to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision(s) and further shall not act to release any surety from its oblig ations under this Agreement.

(d) In the event that Subdivider fails to perform a ny obligation hereunder, Subdivider agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing per formances of such obligations, including costs of s uit and reasonable attorney’s fees.

19. Completion; Warranty

(a) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of this Section, upon completion of all the Required Improvements, and upon the City Council authorizing a written Notice of Completion and acceptance of s aid work, the City will release all hold and any claims to ei ghty percent (80%) of the amount of securities post ed for faithful performance as specified in Section 10, above. The remaining twenty percent (20%) shall be held by the City for a period of one (1) year after the date of the Notice of Completion as a guarantee (warranty) bond to se cure the performance of Section 14 of this Agreement and shall thereafter be released.

(b) The provisions of subdivision (a) of this Secti on notwithstanding, if the Subdivision is part of a ny City maintenance assessment district, the faithful performance security shall not be released, and no Required Improvements shall be accepted by the City unless and until Subdivider has paid to City any fees required to operate and maintain the Required Improvements until such time as the City has accepted the Required Improvements and received the first maintenance assessment disbursem ent from the County.

(c) The amount specified in Section 10(a)(2) above for labor and materials security shall be reduced or released pursuant to the provisions of Section 66499.7(h) of the Map Act.

20. Notices

All notices required by or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in pers on or sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, if mailed, on the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notices shall be addressed as follows:

If to City: City of Victorville
Attention: City Engineer
P.O. Box 5001
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA 92393-5001

With a copy to: Green de Bortnowsky, LLP
30077 Agoura Court, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-2713
Attn: Andre de Bortnowsky, City Attorney

If to Subdivider: RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES INC., a Maryland Corporati on 5171 California Ave, #120
Irvine, CA 92617

8 With a copy to:

If to surety:

Any Party or the surety may change such address by notice in writing to the other Party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to such new address.

21. Recordation

This Agreement shall be recorded with the County Re corder following the full execution thereof by the Parties, the posting of securities by Subdivider as set fort h in Section 10 hereof, and the approval and record ation of the final Map as set forth in the Recitals of this Agreement.

22. Binding Upon Heirs, Successors and Assigns; Runs with Land

This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the respective Parties. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land and an equitable servitude upon the Property within the Subdivision.

23. Severability; Entire Agreement

The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified in writing by the mutual consent of the Pa rties. This Agreement, together with all exhibits, the Conditions of Approval and the Map expressly referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them with respect to the subject matter hereof.

24. Authority of Executing Parties

The persons executing this Agreement warrant and re present that they are duly authorized to execute th is Agreement on behalf of and bind the Party each purp orts to represent.

25. Incorporation of Exhibits

The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:

Exhibit A – Legal Description of Subdivision
Exhibit B – Tract Map
Exhibit C – Engineer’s Cost Estimate

26. Headings

The captions and Section headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define, limit, or affect the construction or interpretation of any term or provision hereof.

27. Waiver; Amendment; Modification

9 No breach of this Agreement or of any provision her ein may be waived except by an express written waiv er executed by the Party waiving such breach. Waiver of any one breach shall not be deemed a waiver of a ny other breach or provision of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended, altered, modified, or otherwise changed only by a writing duly executed by the Part ies hereto or their authorized representatives. No modification, waiver, amendment, or discharge of th is Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in w riting and signed by all Parties.

28. Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted, cons trued, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement shall be tried and litigated only in the state cour ts located in the County of San Bernardino, State o f California, or federal courts located in the Central District of California.

[END OF THIS PAGE]
[SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW]

11 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION

LOTS 1 THROUGH 36, OF TRACT NO. 17316, IN THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDE D IN BOOK 330, PAGES 13 THROUGH 16, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE, OF THE COUNTY REC ORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

12 EXHIBIT B

TRACT MAP

13 EXHIBIT C

ENGINEER’S COST ESTIMATE

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

BOND FORMAT
Developer:

Tract: 17316 Linear Footage 670 Square Footage 4,220
Streets:

Prepared by: Date:

ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. TOTALS
1 Irrigation Materials ($6.00 s/f) 25,320.00 $
2 Plant Materials ($4.25 s/f) 17,935.00 $
3 Finish Grading ($0.50 s/f) 2,110.00 $
4 Soil Preparation ($1.50 s/f) 6,330.00 $
5 Standard S-09 Curbing ($26.25 l/f) 17,587.50 $
6 Drains (1 in 100' - 150' @ $400.00 each) 2,680.00 $
6 LMAD Block Walls ($50/lf) 33,500.00 $
Subtotal 105,462.50$
20% Plan Preparation fee 21,092.50$
Contingency fee of 10% 12,655.50 $
Grand total 139,210.50$
Faithful Performance (100%) 139,210.50 $
Labor & Materials (50%) 69,605.25 $
Richmond American Homes
Arrowhead Drive and Ottawa Street
8/18/2021Howard Associates

Page 1 ends

Victorville City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Victorville City Council
January 18, 2022