Agenda packet — Victorville City Council, March 15, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

City Council Chambers
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA
www.victorvilleca.gov

VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL

VICTORVILLE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS RAIL AUTHORITY

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS AIRPORT AUTHORITY

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

THE CITY AS HOUSING ASSETS SUCCESSOR

JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
The City Council holds its business meetings in public in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M.

Brown Act, its established policies and procedures, and its adopted parliamentary authority. The Council strives to carry out its meetings in an atmosphere of professionalism with full participation by members of the body and the public. As such, the Presiding Officer is empowered to govern City Council Meetings to foster the efficient and fair administration of City business and reserves the right to enforce (or cause to be enforced) the Meeting Rules of Conduct and Decorum as set forth in Chapter 5 of the City Council Policy and Procedures Manual.

The City Council welcomes and encourages public participation and invites the community to attend in person. If you cannot attend in person, the meeting will also be available via Zoom and YouTube.

To join via Computer, Laptop, or Smart Device:

Click the blue Zoom icon located on the City’s website at victorvilleca.gov/government/agendas or enter the following:

Meeting ID: 825 4153 9853
Passcode: VV123
*To provide comment, click the “Raise Hand” button and the Clerk will unmute you.

To join via Audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 825 4153 9853
*To provide comment dial *9 to “Raise Hand”
Public Comments: Members of the public may submit comments electronically to [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to be distributed to City Council. Participants are invited to address the Council on agendized and non-agendized topics at the beginning of the meeting. Public comments will be no longer than three (3) minutes per community member. Should a speaker conclude their comments prior to the expiration of three (3) minutes, the speaker waives the right to speak for any remaining amount of time. For further information about how to address the Council, please refer to the City’s website at victorvilleca.gov/government/agendas .

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (760) 955-5188 no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting. 6:00 p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Invocation: Pastor Diondre McBride of Sunrise Church
Pledge of Allegiance: Police Captain John Wickum
Proclamations/Special Presentations
Presentation Recognizing Freedom Writers, Darlene Lara and Nevaeh Castillo and Teachers, Roma Flores and Debra Fernandez
Presentation Recognizing Sohan Patel, Winner of the City’s Civil Rights Memorial Essay Contest
Presentation Recognizing Green de Bortnowsky LLP, Sponsor of the Civil Rights Memorial Essay Contest Plaque
City Clerk Presents Agenda/Revisions to Agenda
Conflict of Interest Declarations
Any items on this agenda that might be a conflict of interest to any Council Members/Board Members should be identified at this time.

Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments

PUBLIC HEARING(S)

1. A Site Plan with a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the development of a 212 unit multi-family apartment complex and a General Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-2 General Commercial to R-4 Very High Density Residential on two acres of the proposed 12 acre site on property located at the Southeast corner of Balsam Road and the logical extension of Winona Street
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and take the following actions:
(1) Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-021, approving the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009; and
(3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2426 for adoption and first reading by title only for the Zone Change portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009; and
(4) Waive further reading in full of proposed Ordinance No. 2426; and (5) Adopt Resolution No. 22-022, approving the Site Plan portion of Case No.

PLAN20-00009.

2. Mid-Year Budget Review and Amendment Request to the 2021-22 Fiscal Budget Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors approve the changes reflected in this agenda item along with the included attachments by adopting:
(1) Resolution No. 22-018 of the City Council amending Resolution 21-064, as amended, the budget resolution for the City of Victorville for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 (2) Resolution No. VWD-22-001 of the Victorville Water District amending Resolution 21-012, as amended, the budget resolution for the Victorville Water District for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022
(3) Resolution No, SCLAA-22-004 of the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority amending Resolution 21-005, as amended, the budget resolution for the City of Victorville for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. VMUS Operating Result Report for FY 2022 - Quarter 2 Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council review and file this report.

4. Victorville Water District Operating Results Report for Quarter One (Q1) and Quarter Two (Q2) of Fiscal Year 2022
Recommendation:

That the Honorable Victorville Water District Board of Directors (Board) review and file.

5. Securities Substitution for Tract Map No. 16463
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Accept new securities for the public improvements for Tract Map No. 16463; and (2) Release the current Lien Agreement with D.R. Horton for Tract Map No. 16463.

6. Security Reduction for Tract Map No. 15295
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Approve a reduction of 80% of the Faithful Performance Bond for the Water and Sewer Improvements for Tract Map No. 15295;
(2) Accept the water and sewer systems for maintenance; and (3) Approve a reduction of 60% of the Faithful Performance Bond for the Street Improvements for Tract Map No. 15295.

7. Calendar Year 2021 Economic Development/Southern California Logistics Airport Activity Report
Recommendation:

This report is informational only. No action is requested.

8. Commercial Demand Schedule No. 17
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify Commercial Demand Schedule No. 17 in the amount of $3,526,685.31, covering Electronic Fund Transfers No. 328978 through 329195 and Warrant No. 784674 through 784830 for 02/23/2022 through 03/02/2022 and Wire Transfers dated 02/25/2022, per the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for the period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

9. Payroll Warrant List
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify the Payroll Demand Schedule No. 8A for Payroll Period January 21, 2022 through February 04, 2022, in the amount of $1,734,136.19 covering Check Nos. 32655 through Nos. 32674, including Vendor checks. Please note employee Check No. 32659 has a live Check and an EFT Advice.

Also included are Advice Nos. 285069 through 285502, per adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

10. Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Special City Council Meeting, December 21, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting, and December 22, 2021 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on December 16, 2021, the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on December 21, 2021, and the minutes of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting held on December 22, 2021.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

11. Benefits Resolution No. 22-020 and Table Of Organization Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt Benefits Resolution 22-020, revising the Table of Organization and Compensation Schedule, effective January 1, 2022.

12. Consultant/Professional Services Agreement with Reward Strategy Group Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council approve a Consultant/Professional Services Agreement with Reward Strategy Group for a Compensation Study in an amount not to exceed Eighty-five Thousand Three Hundred and 00/100 dollars ($85,300).

13. Amendment to the General Services Provider Standard Agreement with Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. to Furnish and Deliver Waterworks Products and Supplies Recommendation:

That the Honorable Victorville Water District Board of Directors (Board) approve Amendment No. 3 to the General Services Provider Agreement by and between Victorville Water District (District) and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. (Ferguson) to Furnish and Deliver Waterworks Products and Supplies, Project CC20-014, for an additional amount of $267,275.

14. Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and Santi Rao
Recommendation:

That Your Honorable Southern California Logistics Airport Authority Board of Directors:
(1) Authorize the Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and Mr. Santi Rao for the purchase of Assessor’s Parcel Number 0459-032-39;
(2) Approve Resolution No. SCLAA 22-005 amending the 2021/2022 budget increasing expenditures in Fund 455 by $210,000; and
(3) Authorize the Airport Director to execute transactional documents to effectuate the purchase of subject property, including making non substantive modifications to the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

15. Purchase of Fleet Vehicles Under Project CC22-060 Purchase of New Vehicles Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Approve the purchase of fleet vehicles from Project CC22-060 vehicle list, through several procurement methods such as cooperative purchasing programs, lead agency piggyback programs, and availability of suitable dealer lot inventory; and (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary for such purchases.

16. Approval for Purchase of Leotek LED Safety Lights
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the purchase of 108 Leotek LED safety lights from South Coast Lighting & Design in the amount of $64,480.05.

17. Vacation of a Public Utility Easement on Property Located on Village Drive, near Culebra Road, Tract Map No. 4594, Lot Nos. 2 and 3
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 22-023 to vacate a public utility easement on Tract Map No. 4594, Lot Nos. 2 and 3.

18. Wellness Center Project - Award of Phase 1 Construction Contract Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Approve Resolution No. 22-025, authorizing the waiver of bidding requirements and use of cooperative purchasing construction agreements procured through Sourcewell for the Wellness Center project; and
(2) Award a construction contract to Angeles Contractor Inc. for an initial first phase of construction in the amount of $4,827,947.76 for the Wellness Center project.

19. Wellness Center Project - Construction Management
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve a Consultant / Professional Services Provider Agreement for the Wellness Center Project construction management with the Pacifica Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed of $2,373,601.

20. Wellness Center Project - Cooperative Agreement with Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA)
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve a Cooperative Agreement between the City and VVWRA related to the construction of a sewer pipe within the Wellness Center Project boundaries and authorize the City Attorney to make non-substantive revisions to the agreement.

21. Wellness Center Project - Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for environmental services
Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant / Professional Services Provider Agreement with ECORP Consulting, Inc. for additional scope of work, an extension of the term to expire December 31, 2022, and an increase in compensation by $123,500, thereby increasing the total cumulative not to exceed sum from $115,975 to $239,475, for the environmental services associated with the construction of the Wellness Center.

22. Approval of a Second Amended and Restated Loan Agreement for the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority Property Acquisition Loan Recommendation:

That the Honorable City as Housing Assets Successor (CHAS) Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. CHAS 22-002.

23. Approval of an Amended and Restated Loan Agreement for the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund Loan
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City as Housing Assets Successor (CHAS) Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. CHAS 22-001.

24. Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land – Parks Division Properties Recommendation:

That the City Council:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-016 declaring three properties owned by the City as “Exempt Surplus Land” pursuant to the Surplus Land Act; (2) Authorize the transmittal of a certified copy of the Resolution to the Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) Department, as specified in Section 400(e) of the Surplus Land Act Guidelines; and
(3) Authorize staff to initiate negotiations for the disposition and sale of the properties with the Mojave Water Agency.

25. Adoption of Resolution No. 22-017 Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council Adopt Resolution No. 22-017 Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1.

26. Amendment No. 3 to the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with N.B.S. Government Finance Group
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve Amendment No. 3 to the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with N.B.S. Government Finance Group, increasing compensation by $24,798.00 for the completion of the City- wide User Fee Study and Development Impact Fee Study.

27. Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with T.R. Design Group, Inc Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council approve the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with T.R. Design Group, Inc. in the amount of $82,262.50 to develop a conceptual design for library services at the Green Tree Golf Course Clubhouse.

28. Building Forward: Library Infrastructure Grant Program Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-024, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to apply, accept and execute grant funds for the Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program Grant from the California State Library.

29. City Manager Reports

30. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Upcoming Agenda Items

31. Reports from Council Members
Adjournment
Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing(s)
Meeting of: March 15, 2022
Submitted By:

Scott Webb, City Planner

Subject:

A Site Plan with a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the development of a 212 unit multi-family apartment complex and a General Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-2 General Commercial to R-4 Very High Density Residential on two acres of the proposed 12 acre site on property located at the Southeast corner of Balsam Road and the logical extension of Winona Street.

Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and take the following actions:
1) Adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-021, approving the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009; and
3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2426 for adoption and first reading by title only for the Zone Change portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009; and
4) Waive further reading in full of proposed Ordinance No. 2426; and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 22-022, approving the Site Plan portion of Case No.

PLAN20-00009.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.

Background:

The applicant Amir Aziz, has proposed the development of a new 212-unit multi-family apartment community, consisting of two-story and three-story structures with an approximate density of 19 units per acre. The project site is comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 12 acres in size and is adjacent to an existing apartment complex, 2 3
6 9
skilled nursing facility and Victor Valley Christian School. The proposed apartment complex will include ten 3-story residential buildings, one 2-story apartment building, as well as a main clubhouse with a pool complex. As proposed the project includes approximately five acres of landscape open space area and enhanced amenities such as interconnecting walkways, pocket parks, spa and gym facilities throughout the site and active lawn areas, in addition to the main clubhouse pool complex.

To accommodate this proposal, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the southern portion of the project site from Commercial to High Density Residential to match the northern portion of the project site, and a Zone Change from C- 2 (General Commercial) to R-4 (Very High Density Residential) on the southern portion of the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will result in a consistent and compatible land use pattern and development density and intensity that presently exists in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.

Following a public hearing held at its February 9th, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the proposal by a vote of 4-0 with Chairman Kurth absent.

Discussion:

General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will reclassify approximately 2.36 acres of land from Commercial (C-2) to High Density Residential (R-4), accommodating the proposed apartment development. Located off the hard corner of Nisqualli and Balsam Roads, the site is considered less than desirable for commercial development given the limited visibility of the parcel from the public right- of-way, as proposed, the High Density Designation allows for the establishment of a more compatible land use with the adjacent developments.

The City’s General Plan Housing Element has recently undergone an update in accordance with the State’s latest requirements, including updates to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plan. The recently approved RHNA mandates have required the City of Victorville to accommodate a minimum of 8,165 units over the next eight years while the AFFH will seek to improve access to all housing types in all areas of the City in accordance with State standards. The proposal will aid the City in providing units required by the RHNA while also providing a diverse housing stock in an area of the City that contains limited housing opportunities.

Single-family development has dominated new housing construction throughout the City. This proposal is only the second apartment project to be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council in the last ten years. As previously noted, with the RHNA and AFFH requirements imposed on the City by the State of California, development of multi-family projects such as the subject proposal on property zoned for the specific type of development are beneficial as they further the City’s compliance with the noted requirements.
2 3
6 9
Site Plan
The project has been designed in accordance with all development standards outlined in Title 16 of the of Municipal Code (Development Code) for an R-4 Zone District as well as in compliance with the Multi-Family Design Guidelines, including conformance with required parking, landscaping, amenities, setbacks, and building height standards. Additionally, some features of the proposal exceed Development Code standards in an effort to provide a unique and enhanced development that is mindful of the built environment. These enhancements include additional amenities above those required by the Municipal Code, such as gym facilities, spas, active lawn areas, shade structures, barbeque areas, connecting walking paths throughout the site, as well as an abundant tree canopy throughout the proposed development.

Copies of the plans can be viewed within Attachment E.

In addition to the amenities offered for future residents, the community will be well designed with a varied street scene and elevations which are predominately a Spanish architectural design with arched elements, ornamental wall treatments as well as other architectural features such as varying rooflines utilizing Spanish tile and trellis features. The proposed enhancements have also been incorporated into the common amenities (e.g. clubhouse, laundry buildings, gyms, and carports), which will provide a cohesive architectural design throughout the proposed community.

Environmental Assessment
The proposed multi-family apartment project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (‘CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City.

Following this assessment, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all of the proposed mitigation measures have been included within the proposed Conditions of Approval. Mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural and tribal resources and geology were included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that will ensure that any potential effects on the environment are considered less than significant. As of this writing and at the conclusion of the CEQA review period, no comments have been received from any public agencies in response to the circulation of the environmental documents through the State Clearinghouse.

Attachments: A. Location Graphic
B. Resolution No. 22-021 (General Plan Amendment)
C. Ordinance No. 2426 (Zone Change)
D. Resolution No. 22-022 (Site Plan)
E. Background information from the February 9 th, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT A
Location Graphic
N
SITE

Page 1 of 4 ends

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT B
General Plan Amendment Resolution No.
22-021
City Council Resolution No. 22-021 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 22-021

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN20-00009, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO RECLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF A 12 ACRE PROJECT

SITE FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALSAM

ROAD AND THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been received from Amir Aziz, regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. AND PARCEL TWO: THE EAST ½ O THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN,

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on the 9th day of February, 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 3 of the Government Code of the State of California, to hear arguments for and against the proposal and voted 4 – 0 in favor of recommending approval of the item to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held before the City Council of the City of Victorville on the 15th day of March, 2022, for the purpose of taking public input relative to the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan as it does not vary from the intent of the goal for balanced and well integrated land uses; and City Council Resolution No. 22-021 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment creates consistent and compatible land use pattern and development density and intensity that is consistent with existing developments in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment reduces future land use conflicts and results in a higher and better use as the parcel has limited visibility from the adjacent roadways, located behind a fuel station; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds changing the General Plan Designation to High Density does not affect the integrity of the neighborhood and it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the change to High Density Residential will further the City in reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals outlined by the State by increasing the affordable housing units capable of being developed by approximately 45 dwelling units based on the 2.36 acres proposed to be redesignated; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the City Council, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the City Council found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the loss of 2.36 acres of commercial zoning will not impact the City’s ability to provide adequate retail commercial areas nor negatively impact City Council Resolution No. 22-021 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

existing adjacent commercial developments as adequate landscape buffers and setbacks have been provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceeding upon which its decision is based shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony presented, the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion as the final legislative and adjudicatory body of the City, based on substantial evidence in the record, votes to approve the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.The City Council of the City of Victorville hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as findings into the substantive portion of this Resolution.

Section 2.The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Section 4. The City Council instructs City Staff to update the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Victorville to conform to the General Plan Amendment described herein.

Ordinance No. 2426 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 1 of 5 ends

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT C
Zone Change Ordinance 2426
Ordinance No. 2426 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2426

A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE ADOPTING THE ZONE CHANGE PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN20-00009, A ZONE CHANGE TO RECLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF A 12 ACRE PROJECT SITE FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-4 VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALSAM

ROAD AND THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City of Victorville (the “City”) is authorized to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 65850 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City may adopt by ordinance regulations affecting the use of buildings, structures and land; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 16-2.01.020 of the Victorville Municipal Code, a property owner has initiated a Zone Change regarding real property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing was held on the 9 th day of February, 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 3 of the Government Code of the State of California, to hear arguments for and against the proposal; and after hearing all testimony offered; the Victorville Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P-22-011, which Ordinance No. 2426 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

recommended to the City Council the adoption of the Zone Change specified in Planning Case No. PLAN20-00009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed Zone Change to R-4 Very High Density Residential as the site meets the minimum size requirements of the Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Zone Change to Very High Density Residential will have no adverse effect upon abutting property as the Zone Change will be consistent with the abutting development to the east and consistent with the larger ten acre portion of the project to the north of and abutting the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment reduces future land use conflicts and results in a higher and better use as the parcel has limited visibility from the adjacent roadways, located behind a fuel station; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change of 2.36 acres to Very High Density Residential with further the City in reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals outlined by the State by increasing the affordable housing units capable of being developed by approximately 45 dwelling units based on the 2.36 acres proposed to be redesignated; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the City Council, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the City Council found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and
Ordinance No. 2426 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the loss of 2.36 acres of commercial zoning will not impact the City’s ability to provide adequate retail commercial areas nor negatively impact existing adjacent commercial developments as adequate landscape buffers and setbacks have been provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceeding upon which its decision is based shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California, and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the Government Code of the State of California and Section 16-2.01.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the City Council on the 15 th day of March, 2022 to hear arguments for and against the Zone Change, and after hearing all verbal and written testimony offered, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation and minutes, and after thoroughly reviewing and considering the Zone Change, the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in their entirety.

Section 2.Severability
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3. Effective Date
Ordinance No. 2426 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.

Section 4. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.

Section 5. Staff Update
The City Council instructs City Staff to update the Zoning Map of the City of Victorville to conform to the Zone Change described herein.

Page 1 of 14 ends

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT D
Site Plan Resolution No. 22-022
City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 2 of 14 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 22-022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE GRANTING THE SITE PLAN PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN20-00009, A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 212-UNIT MULTI- FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX ON A 12 ACRE PROJECT SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED

AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALSAM ROAD AND THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET.

WHEREAS, an application has been received from Amir Aziz, regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on the 9th day of February, 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 3, of the Government Code of the State of California, to hear arguments for and against the proposal and voted 4-0 in favor of recommending approval of the item to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held before the City Council of the City of Victorville on the 15th day of March, 2022, for the purpose of taking public input relative to the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Victorville Development Department undertook and completed an Initial Study for the project, the result of which was the preparation and circulation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 3 of 14 ends

WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the City Council, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the City Council found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based, shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed use along with adequate development standards to ensure land use compatibility due to: a proposed dwelling unit density of approximately 19 units per acre in accordance with the site’s underlying R-4 (Very High Density Residential) zoning designation and High Density Residential General Plan designation that allows the 20 units per acre as proposed; the project’s conformance with all applicable development standards as conditioned including setbacks, parking, building height, and recreational space and amenities; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed use does not meet the suspension allowances provided by Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001, Section 9.32.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code, or Section 16-5.12.190 of the Victorville Municipal Code for any unfinished right-of-way improvements or location of utilities underground, and that the suspension of any unfinished improvements or location of utilities underground may adversely affect the public’s health, safety and welfare; and therefore requires the construction of any unfinished right- of-way improvements and the location of utilities underground as required by the Victorville Municipal Code and conditions of approval contained within this resolution; and City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 4 of 14 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(a) of the Victorville Municipal Code since: the location of the proposed apartment development includes setbacks and buffers exceeding Municipal Code requirements in order to prevent negative effects to privacy and match development in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the project will complement existing development in the vicinity and minimize impacts to surrounding properties by: providing setbacks along street frontages that match existing development; including buffers consisting of enhanced landscaping and increased setbacks; and by providing a quality multi-family development that meets or exceeds all development standards outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(c) of the Victorville Municipal Code as minimal disruption will occur to surrounding properties after completion of the construction activities on-site given the requirements to pay development impact fees and school fees, the requirement to complete the current unimproved Winona Street and the amenities provided on-site that will provide sufficient recreational opportunities for residents of the development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(d) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the development is proposed in accordance with the applicable development standards, regulations, and requirements of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(e) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code have been City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 5 of 14 ends

satisfied including setbacks, buffers, parking, landscaping, amenities, building design, building size and height; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that providing decorative fencing and columns up to six feet in height and setback a minimum of fifteen feet from the property line at Balsam Road and Winona Street is allowable pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(f) of the Victorville Municipal Code given the enhanced landscaping provided and to coordinate with existing fencing at the property line along Winona Street at the adjacent developed property, and that such an allowance will not be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare as no sight distance will be adversely impacted; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony presented, the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion as the final legislative and adjudicatory body of the City, based on substantial evidence in the record, votes to approve the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.The City Council of the City of Victorville hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as findings into the substantive portion of this Resolution.

Section 3.The City Council, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030 of the Victorville Municipal Code, hereby approves the Site Plan portion of case PLAN20-00009, a Site Plan with a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the Development of a 212-unit multi-family apartment City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 6 of 14 ends

complex on a 12 acre project site on property hereinabove described, subject to the following conditions of approval:

Planning Conditions:

1. This Site Plan approval allows for the development of a 212-unit multi-family apartment complex on a vacant and undeveloped property located at the southwest corner of Balsam Road and Winona Street. Included in the project scope are ten 3-story residential buildings, one 2-story apartment building, a clubhouse building, a pool complex, spa and gym facilities, laundry buildings, as well as various site improvements including recreational amenities, parking areas, landscaping, refuse collection areas, and fencing.

2. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable development standards of Title 16 and be in general compliance with the Multi-family Design Guidelines.

3. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformity with the plans submitted as part of this application, unless modification is required to comply with the applicable development standards of Title 16 and/or conditions of approval.

4. The development shall be in substantial conformity with the architectural elevations and renderings submitted with this application, unless modification is required by condition.

5. Any change in use or implementation of a new use within the facility, which will require additional parking spaces resulting in noncompliance with the parking standards of Title 16 shall cause that use to be subject to Planning Commission review and approval.

6. The number and location of all handicapped parking spaces shall be subject to Planning Department and Building Department review and approval.

7. The applicant/developer shall install decorative paving (e.g. stamped color concrete) at the main driveway entry to the site as well as within the drive aisles at connections to the clubhouse building and elsewhere as indicated on the site plan, with final design and placement to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.

8. All proposed signs, including any freestanding signage, shall comply with Title 16. The applicant shall be required to submit a sign package for review and must gain approval by the Planning Commission prior to approval of any signage proposed which is inconsistent with Title 16. All signs shall be subject to Planning Staff review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit.

9. All proposed temporary signage shall comply with Title 16. All temporary signs (grand openings, special sales, etc.) shall only be affixed to the suite they serve in accordance with an approved Temporary Sign Permit. Flags or other off-site signage is prohibited within multi-tenant developments.

10. A six-inch wide planter curbing, in accordance with Engineering Standard S-09, is required along the perimeter of any landscaped areas, including planters that abut the public right-of-way sidewalk. All planter strips abutting a public right-of-way and planter islands/landscape fingers shall be a minimum interior width of five feet, exclusive of curbing. The grading and site plans shall clearly show all required curbing.

City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 7 of 14 ends

11. The applicant/developer shall provide landscaping/irrigation plans in accordance with Chapter

13.60 of the Victorville Municipal Code, entitled Water Conservation. Landscape areas shall not exceed a slope of 3:1 and shall also meet Title 16 standards, including the minimum interior percentage of landscaping and the maximum dispersal of landscaping within a parking lot. The landscaping plan shall include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree for every eight parking spaces provided on-site. In addition, the landscaping plan shall include the maximum spacing of all plants as follows:

A. Ground cover – eighteen inches on center
B. One gallon plants – three feet on center
C. Five gallon plants – five feet on center
In addition, a note shall be conspicuously placed on the landscape plan indicating the following: Any discrepancy between the maximum spacing criteria and the number of plants shown on the landscape plan shall result in the spacing criteria superseding any other information shown on the landscape plan.

12. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a neat, clean, orderly and healthful condition. This includes proper pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary and the regular watering of all plants. In addition, all landscaped areas shall be provided with a suitable permanent water system.

13. The applicant shall install a trash enclosures in conformance with Section 16-3.24.110 of the Victorville Municipal Code. The enclosure shall have solid block walls with non-transparent metal gates, a solid roof/cover that is architecturally compatible with the primary building(s) onsite and serves to protect the refuse area from inclement weather, as well as wrought iron that fully encloses the trash enclosure between the block wall/metal gates and the roof to prevent unauthorized entry. Additionally, all trash enclosures shall include “walk-in” rear or side access for pedestrian use. The location, design and quantity of said enclosures shall be subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval.

14. All carports shall retain architectural features/elements of the primary dwelling structures as proposed (including but not limited to roof pitch, style, building material and color), with final placement to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.

15. The perimeter fence surrounding the property shall be constructed of wrought iron with decorative masonry columns located approximately every twenty linear feet of fence, with final design and placement to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.

16. Final material selections for exterior enhancements including tile accents located within architectural elements shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.

17. All rooftop and/or ground mounted equipment visible from public rights-of-way shall be screened from view and architecturally integrated into the building.

18. Any wall mounted utility equipment (i.e. meters, panels, boxes, conduit etc.) shall not be visually exposed on the building. This type of equipment shall be internally located, screened City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 8 of 14 ends

with landscaping or covered in a manner that is architecturally integrated into the design of the building, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.

19. Roof drains (i.e. scuppers and down spouts) shall not be visually exposed on the building(s).

Roof drains shall be internally located, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.

20. Electrical transformers and associated bollards shall be delineated on the site plan, landscape plan and utility plan. This equipment shall be appropriately screened from view, should not be placed adjacent to public areas, and shall not encroach into required planters and/or parking stalls. The location of this equipment shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall correspond with the utility company’s approved location.

21. All site and building lighting shall be consistent with the architectural theme and design of the buildings and site, subject to review and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit.

22. The applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from any affected regulatory agencies.

23. Prior to the release of any utilities for the use, all Title 16 improvements for the project shall be installed or a bond posted in the amount of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the value of the uncompleted work shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, unless otherwise deemed unnecessary by the Zoning Administrator. Any modifications to the amount of the bond shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator only if found by the Zoning Administrator that there are circumstances unique to the use that is not applicable to other uses.

24. The Applicant/Owner shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Victorville, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Victorville or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval. The City of Victorville shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Victorville shall cooperate fully in the defense.

25. The project shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws and policies, including: the California Government Code (including the Planning, Zoning and Development Laws), Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act, International Building Code, Green Code, Fire Code; and, Victorville General Plan and Municipal Code; unless permitted to deviate through provisions of such, or through adopted mitigation measures, conditions of approval, or the plans themselves.

26. Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls, desert tortoise, and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code shall be conducted prior to the commencement of Project-related ground disturbance. a. Appropriate survey methods and timeframes shall be established, to ensure that chances of detecting the target species are maximized. In the event that listed species, such as the desert tortoise, are encountered, authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW must be obtained. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure that nests are not disturbed until after young have fledged.
b. Pre-construction surveys shall encompass all areas within the potential footprint of disturbance for the project, as well as a reasonable buffer around these areas City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 9 of 14 ends

27. Prior to the implementation of the recommended measures outlined in the Protected Plant Preservation Plan, an ITP shall be obtained from CDFW for any Joshua Tree on-site removed from its current position as deemed applicable by the CDFW. CDFW may require the preparation of additional habitat assessments prior the issuance of an ITP; any such requirement, as well as mitigation for the loss of trees will be established by CDFW and incorporated into the City’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project.

28. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered areas may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

29. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

30. If, at any time, human remains or suspected human remains are identified within the Project Site, the Contractor will halt work in the immediate vicinity of the find and establish a buffer zone around the find. If the archaeological consultant is on-site, the archaeological consultant will oversee the level of protection. The City will be immediately notified and the City will contact the County Coroner (within 24 hours). The Coroner has the authority to examine the find in situ and make a determination as to the nature of the find:
a. If the remains are determined to be human, the Coroner will determine whether or not they are likely of Native American origin. If so, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the Commission will name the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). In consultation between the City, Property Owner, MLD, and consulting archaeologist, the disposition of the remains will be defined. If there is a conflict, the Native American Heritage Commission with act as a mediator. b. If the remains are determined to be archaeological, but not of Native American origin, the City, Property Owner and archaeological consultant will determine the management of the find and the removal from the site. The Property Owner would be responsible for any costs related to the removal, analysis, and reburial. c. If the remains are determined to be of forensic value, the Coroner will arrange for the removal of the remains and oversee the analysis and disposition.

31. Should older Quaternary Alluvial deposits be encountered during site preparation activities, a qualified paleontologist shall oversee the excavations to ensure that any paleontological specimens are identified, recovered, analyzed, reported, and curated in accordance with CEQA and the County of San Bernardino policies and guidelines. This program should be City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 10 of 14 ends

conducted while these older deposits are impacted and while the paleontological consultant deems the program necessary.

32. The SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

33. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and City of Victorville for dissemination to SMBMI. The City of Victorville and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

34. The applicant/developer shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis approved by the City of Victorville, including but not limited to payment of traffic impact fees (e.g. development impact fees, fair share contributions, etc.) and direct project mitigations, as required by the City Engineer of the City of Victorville in conjunction with the project’s Site Plan entitlement.

Engineering Conditions:

35. The developer shall dedicate an easement for public right-of-way to the City of Victorville for the following in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan:
a. 34-feet from the centerline of improvements for Balsam Road. b. 47-feet from the centerline of improvements for Balsam Road for the dedicated right- turn pocket at Winona Road. The dedicated right turn pocket shall be a minimum of 300-feet long with a 60-foot taper for a total length of 360-feet measured from the BCR. c. 34-feet from the centerline of improvements for Winona Street. d. Balsam Road and Winona Street SE Corner: Corner cut-off/chamfer to accommodate a 25-foot radius curb return and City standard accessibility ramp.

36. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide easement for the existing public sewer which is located along the easterly property line. Buildings, carports, and other structures will not be allowed to encroach into the easement. Parking spaces will not be allowed over the sewer manholes. The landscaping within the easement shall be subject to approval by City’s Public Works Department which may exclude trees.

Page 11 of 14 ends

centerline of improvements and a crack seal & slurry seal from curb to curb for the entire frontage.
b. Construction of street improvements on the Winona Street frontage. The developer shall install an additional 12-feet of pavement widening, an AC berm, and parkway grading on the opposite side of the street centerline as required by the City Engineer plus the standard parkway on the development side.
c. The installation of an ADA compliant ramp at the southeast corner of Balsam Road and Winona Street. Additional right-of-way dedication may be required to allow for the 25-foot radius return.
d. Installation of streetlights along the frontages of the property, per City Standards.

38. Prior to the issuance of permits, the developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement for the completion of all improvements as required by Section 9.32.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code. The improvement agreement shall be secured by one of the forms specified by Section

17.64.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code.

39. Street improvement plans for all required curb, gutter, sidewalks, pavement widening, driveway approaches, street lighting, and other improvements within public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.

40. A signing and striping improvement plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.

41. The developer shall install streetlights on decorative marblelite standards along the frontages of the project property as required by the City Engineer. A street lighting plan shall be prepared by the developer’s engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval.

42. The developer shall comply with Section 16-5.12.170 of the Victorville Municipal Code regarding the undergrounding of any existing above ground utilities on-site, along property lines, and street frontages. Overhead electrical utilities shall be relocated and placed underground prior to occupancy.

43. The site and public walkways shall be designed and constructed for accessibility in compliance with the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design and the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements of the City of Victorville.

44. A permit issued from the City’s Engineering Department is required prior to commencement of any work performed within public right-of-way and the City’s inspection process followed for the connection to and construction of any facilities that are to be dedicated to, owned and maintained by the City.

45. In accordance with State Water Quality Resources Board requirements, the developer shall implement measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction, storm water treatment and baseline hydro modification as defined by the Phase II Small MS4 Permit. This includes measures installed such that post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates do not exceed the estimated pre-development rate, and on-site post-construction BMPs for treatment of storm water run-off.

City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 12 of 14 ends

46. The developer shall prepare a water quality management plan for the on-site post- construction BMPs for treatment of storm water run-off. The project property owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City for the water quality management plan.

47. A grading plan/site improvement plan shall be submitted to the Development Department for review and approval. The grading plan shall address all on-site and off-site drainage issues, including nuisance water and flows entering and exiting the site. A final drainage study shall be submitted with the grading plan. The developer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations to size any drainage structure included in the grading plan design.

48. A geotechnical report shall be submitted with and incorporated into the grading plan.

49. Grading operations and construction shall be conducted in a manner and/or measures taken to prevent sand, dust, and debris to blow onto other properties. An adequate dust palliative shall be used at all times. After completion of grading the developer shall maintain the site such that sand, dust and debris do not blow onto other properties.

50. Temporary fencing shall be erected as required by City staff during construction to prevent windblown debris from leaving the project site and to ensure public safety.

51. If landscaped areas equal or exceeds 1,000 square feet than a separate irrigation with an RP devise shall be required. A reduced pressure backflow device per City standard W-39 must be installed behind the domestic water meter serving the site. A Fire Service Reduced Pressure Detector Assembly per City standard W-28 shall be installed on the fire protection service if on-site protection is required. The developer shall submit plans for water service connections and valves to the Development Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. A current water service will serve letter from Victorville Water District is required with the plan submittal. Water service shall be subject to the conditions within the will serve letter and the approved Water Feasibility Study.

52. Per the approved Water Feasibility Study, the developer shall construct an 8” water main extension on the Winona Street frontage.

53. This project requires a connection to the City’s sewage collection system. All improvements shall be installed by the developer in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements of the City of Victorville. Sewer improvement plans shall be submitted to the Development Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.

54. Per the approved Sewer Feasibility Study, the developer shall construct a 60” sewer manhole per City Standards at the point of connection on the Winona Street frontage. The invert of the point of connection shall be higher than the existing 12” sewer main.

55. The onsite water and sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained.

56. A permit issued from the City’s Engineering Department is required for the connection to the City’s sewer and water systems.

57. All public utility distribution lines, including service lines to the site, shall be installed by the developer.

City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 13 of 14 ends

58. The method of installation (trenching or boring) for connections to existing utilities (sewer, water, storm drain, etc.) within paved streets shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

59. The developer shall be responsible for all costs (including application fees) incurred due to the relocation of existing utility facilities where such facilities conflict with the improvements associated with this project.

60. Landscaping within the traffic sighting distance triangle at intersections and driveway connections to public streets shall be limited to ground cover only and shall not include shrubs and trees.

61. The developer shall pay any and all fees and charges that may become effective prior to the issuance of a building permit or utility connection and shall pay such fees as a condition of obtaining a building permit, unless otherwise waived by the City Council.

62. Prior to construction of any improvements or any land disturbance, the developer shall construct temporary drainage facilities and provide erosion control measures as necessary to minimize storm water run-off, erosion, and silt deposition. The developer shall provide an erosion control plan of the Best Management Practices to be implemented during construction. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit program requires operators of construction sites one acre or larger (including smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development) to obtain an NPDES permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP, and an erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Development Department. All NPDES guidelines must be adhered to, and best management practices followed at all times during construction.

63. A boundary survey must be performed and property corners verified prior to construction to facilitate the placement of improvements per plan direction. The developer’s engineer shall provide a horizontal control plan to the City for review or provide adequate control/dimensioning on the site/grading plan.

64. On-site drainage to streets shall be conveyed through parkway drains or as approved by the City Engineer.

65. An application for plan review and an engineer’s construction cost estimate for civil improvements shall be required at the time of initial improvement plan submittal. Payment of plan and map check fees as per the City’s Development Department Engineering Plan Check Fee Schedule based on the engineer’s cost estimate shall be required with the plan submittal.

Fire Conditions:

66. Shall comply with all Building and Fire Code requirements based on occupancy classification.

67. Monitored fire sprinkler system(s) are required for the proposed building(s). Plans shall be submitted prior to construction.

68. Monitored fire alarm system(s) are required for proposed building(s). Plans shall be submitted prior to construction.

69. An approved on-site fire protection system, (Fire Hydrants) in accordance with Fire and Water Department Standards is required. The system is required to be in place and serviceable prior to building construction.

City Council Resolution No. 22-022 – PLAN20-00009 March 15, 2022

Page 14 of 14 ends

70. An approved water supply system, complete with street hydrants complying with Fire Department Standards, shall be in place prior to any combustible construction.

71. Required fire flow for this project is tenatively 2,000gpm @ 20psi for a 2-hour duration at the furthest remote hydrant. Contact Water Department to assure availability of required fire flow.

72. Fire Department access roadways greater than 150’ in length shall require approved turnarounds per Fire Department Standard.

73. Projects that have more than Five (5) Fire hydrants and/or Fire Sprinkler Risers shall have a water system feed from two different distribution lines.

74. Knox Box/Key Box is required and shall be provided and installed in accordance with Fire Department Standards.

75. Access gates shall be provided with an “Opticom” receiver capable of opening gates via decoding of the “Opticom” strobe signal transmitted by Fire, Police, and Ambulance units. All access gates shall require mechanical means for opening in event of power failure, shall not impinge on required clear width when fully open, and shall be equipped with Knox Box lock actuation devices.

Building Conditions:

76. The project shall comply with all building codes in effect at the time of plan submittal.

77. The scope of work indicated will require accessibility to be included in accordance with Chapter 11A of the California Building Code.

78. Plan check fees for this project will be due, and shall be paid in full, upon submittal of plans to the Building Division. The Building Division may be contacted at (760) 955-5100 for an estimation of these fees. Tools for estimating total permit fees are available on the City’s website at https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city-departments/development/permit- center/fees-forms. Actual amounts owed will be determined upon submittal of the plans via the City’s online permit center.

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT E
Background information from the February 9th
Planning Commission Meeting
Excerpt from the February 9, 2022 Regular Planning Commission Meeting

PLAN20-00009 – Amir Aziz

4. A Site Plan with a Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow for the development of a 212 unit multi -family apartment complex and a General Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C -2 General Commercial to R-4 Very High Density Residential on two acres of the proposed 12 acre site.

Location:

Southeast corner of Balsam Road and the logical extension of Winona Street.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project and take the following actions:

1. Environmental Assessment – Recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project;

2. General Plan Amendment – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-010, recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No.

PLAN20-00009;

3. Zone Change – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-011, recommending City Council approval of the Zone Change portion of Case No. PLAN20 -00009; and

4. Site Plan – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-012, recommending City Council approval of the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Vice Chair Harriman opened the public hearing.

City Clerk Jennifer Thomas read the staff recommendation.

City Planner Scott Webb gave supplemental information on the recommendation.

Questions ensued.

Speakers:

None.

Vice Chair Harriman closed the public hearing.

Motion was made to approve staff recommendation.

Moved: Commissioner Thomas
Seconded: Commissioner Cook-Askins, Jr.

Motion passed 4-0

Ayes: Commissioner Cook-Askins, Jr., Commissioner Mesen, Commissioner Thomas, Vice Chair Harriman

Absent: Chairman Kurth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PLAN20-00009

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 212 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY

APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R -4 VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON TWO ACRES OF THE PROPOSED 12 ACRE SITE.

APPLICANT: AMIR AZIZ

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATES: FEBRUARY 9, 2022

SUMMARY FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED: 0

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR: 0

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING OPPOSED: 0

NUMBER OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR: 0

NUMBER OF WRITTEN COMMENTS OPPOSED: 0

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommended Approval

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: Cook-Askins Jr. Aye
Mesen Aye
Thomas Aye
Kurth ABSENT
Harriman Aye

cj
Item Number:
1 Planning Commission

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Meeting of: February 09, 2022
Submitted By:

Travis Clark, Associate Planner

Case:

PLAN20-00009
Subject:

Applicant:

Amir Aziz
Location:

Southeast corner of Balsam Road and the logical extension of Winona Street.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project and take the following actions:

1. Environmental Assessment – Recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project;

2. General Plan Amendment – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-010, recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009;

3. Zone Change – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-011, recommending City Council approval of the Zone Change portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009; and

4. Site Plan – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-012, recommending City Council approval of the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
2 0
9 5
Summary:

The applicant is requesting approval of this proposal to allow for the construction of a 212- unit apartment complex, consisting of two-story and three-story structures with an approximate density of 19 units per acre. The project site is comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 12 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of Balsam Road and Winona Street adjacent to an existing apartment complex, skilled nursing facility and Victor Valley Christian School. The proposed apartment complex will include ten 3-story residential buildings, one 2-story apartment building, as well as a main clubhouse with a pool complex. As proposed the project includes approximately five acres of landscape open space area and enhanced amenities such as interconnecting walkways, pocket parks, spa and gym facilities throughout the site and active lawn areas, in addition to the main clubhouse pool complex. Additionally, the project includes at least one covered parking space for each unit, proposed as carport spaces, with the remaining required parking being provided uncovered.

Discussion/Analysis:

1. Environmental Assessment.

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachments F & G) have been prepared for the project in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all of the proposed mitigation measures have been included within the proposed Conditions of Approval (Conditions 26 – 33).

Mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural and tribal resources and geology were included in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that will ensure that any potential effects on the environment are considered less than significant. As of this writing and at the conclusion of the CEQA review period, no comments have been received from any public agencies in response to the circulation of the environmental documents through the State Clearinghouse.

2. General Plan Amendment.

The proposed General Plan Amendment will reclassify approximately 2.36 acres of land from Commercial to High Density Residential, accommodating the proposed apartment development (Attachment D). Located off the hard corner of Nisqualli and 2 0
9 5
Balsam Roads, the desirability for commercial development on the subject parcel with limited visibility was minimal, as proposed, the High Density Designation allows for the establishment of a more compatible land use with the adjacent developments.

The City’s General Plan Housing Element has recently undergone an update in accordance with the State’s latest requirements, including updates to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plan. The recently approved RHNA mandates have required the City of Victorville to accommodate a minimum of 8,165 units over the next eight years while the AFFH will seek to improve access to all housing types in all areas of the City in accordance with State standards. The proposal will aid the City in providing units required by the RHNA while also providing a diverse housing stock in an area of the City that contains limited housing opportunities.

3. Zone Change.

The proposed Zone Change will reclassify approximately 2.36 acres of land from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-4 (Very High Density Residential). This change will accommodate the development of a more compatible land use with existing adjacent developments while helping the City to achieve State housing goals and expectations.

Should the proposal be approved as requested, appropriate changes to the General Plan and the Official General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map of the City of Victorville will also be made. This includes adding 2.36 acres of High Density Residential Land Use and 2.36 acres of R-4 Zoning.

4. Site Plan.

Development Standards
The project has been designed in accordance with all development standards outlined in Title 16 of the of Municipal Code (Development Code) for an R-4 Zone District as well as in compliance with the Multi-family Design Guidelines, including conformance with required parking, landscaping, amenities, setbacks, and building height standards. Additionally, some features of the proposal exceed Development Code standards in an effort to provide a unique and enhanced development that is mindful of the built environment, such as:
oAmenities – In addition to providing private recreational space of 150 sq. ft. for each ground unit and 75 sq. ft. for each above-ground unit in accordance with the development standards outlined in Victorville Municipal Code (V.M.C.) 2 0
9 5
Section 16-3.08.020 Table 8-2, the proposal includes approximately eighteen separate common recreational facilities. Common recreational facilities include a pool complex with clubhouse, spa areas throughout the site, gym facilities, active lawn areas, shade structures, barbeque areas and connecting walking paths throughout the site that exceed the total of five facilities otherwise required by V.M.C. Section 16-3.08.100(c)(6)(iii). Together, these private and common facilities and their associated access and landscaping total 102,030 sq. ft. of recreational area equaling over 480 sq. ft. per unit in accordance with and exceeding the 200 sq. ft. required by V.M.C. standards. oLandscaping – Pursuant to V.M.C. Section 16-3.24.030(c) & (d), 99 box trees (24-inch box or larger) are required on-site based upon 1 tree for every 8 parking spaces and 4 trees per acre ([424 spaces / 8 = 53 trees] + [11.44 acres x 4 = 46 trees] = 99 trees required). Inasmuch as the proposal includes 300 trees that are dispersed throughout the site’s perimeter, common areas, and parking field, the project exceeds the requirements of the Development Code and provides for a superior development.
oSite Design – While the site has been arranged to provide dwellings at the perimeter of the site with views of the surrounding areas and place interior buildings with frontages onto common recreational space spaces the site has been designed to be mindful of adjacent uses while providing a pedestrian presence on the abutting streets.
oBuilding Design – The proposed dwelling units exceed minimum size requirements outlined in V.M.C. Section 16-3.08.020 Table 8-1 as one- bedroom apartments (600 sq. ft. required, 687 sq. ft. minimum proposed) and two-bedroom apartments (800 sq. ft required, 962 sq. ft. minimum proposed) exceed minimum standards while 3-bedroom units are also provided at 1,085 sq. ft. in size. Additionally, building elevations are designed with a unified architectural theme with earth tones and finishes that complement the surrounding environment.
In order to ensure the final product maintains compliance with all applicable standards of the Development Code as well as the plans presented for review by the Planning Commission, Staff has included in the following Site Plan Conditions of Approval within Attachment C to address the various aspects of the proposal:
oLandscaping (Conditions 10 through 12) – Pursuant to Section 16-3.24.030 of the V.M.C., landscape plans are required to meet all requirements of the V.M.C. as well as ensure perpetual maintenance of all landscaped areas; therefore, the noted conditions have been included accordingly.
oRefuse Collection (Condition 13) – Pursuant to Section 16-3.24.110 of the V.M.C., trash/recycling material enclosures are required throughout the site in order to serve all residents of the development. While the proposal shows trash 2 0
9 5
enclosure locations and elevations of the structures, a collection route has yet to be coordinated with the City’s Sanitation Division and minor changes to the enclosure details are needed to comply with City standards. Therefore, Staff has included the noted condition to ensure trash enclosures throughout the complex comply with all V.M.C. standards, including capacity, pedestrian access, security, and architectural design.
oCarports (Condition 14) – Pursuant to Section 16-3.08.020 Table 8-2 of the V.M.C., all accessory structures shall incorporate architectural features/ elements of the primary structure (including but not limited to roof pitch, style, building material and color). Therefore, Staff has included the noted condition in order to ensure the proposed carports retain the present design in accordance with V.M.C. standards.
oFencing (Condition 15) – Pursuant to Section 16-3.08.020 Table 8-2 of the V.M.C., fencing within side and rear yards is permitted up to 6 feet in height while front yard areas are permitted to install a 6-foot tall fence only at the site’s 20-foot setback. Given the site’s enhanced perimeter landscaping, staff would not object to a decorative fence placed 15 feet from the sites front property line as proposed, which is consistent with previous approvals by the Planning Commission and existing development in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff has included appropriate findings within Site Plan Resolution No. P-22-012 (Attachment C) to allow 6-foot fence height a minimum of 15 feet from the front property line as well as a condition of approval to require the fence to be constructed of wrought iron with decorative masonry columns.

Elevations
Submitted elevations include a predominately Spanish architectural design with arched elements, ornamental wall treatments as well as other architectural features such as varying rooflines utilizing Spanish tile and trellis features. The proposed elevations also coordinate with the conceptual design of the common amenities (e.g. clubhouse, laundry buildings, gyms, and carports), which will provide a cohesive architectural design throughout the proposed apartment development. An example of the proposed architectural design is provided below.

2 0
9 5

5. Multi-Family Design Guideline Compliance.
Site Planning and Design
a. Site Grading: The proposal will primarily follow the natural contours of the site, which is relatively flat and is designed to optimize water retention. b. Compatibility: New units are located away from existing structures in excess of Municipal Code standards and in a manner that provides increased separation from existing residences with adequate buffers.
c. Building Siting: Buildings are located either fronting onto interconnected pedestrian paths or common open space and all carports are internally located with limited visibility from the street.
d. Driveways and Guest Parking Areas: The main driveway entry includes a roundabout feature and landscaping as well as a gated entry with enhanced landscaping and paving.
e. Setbacks: The project meets all setback requirements and will coordinate with existing setbacks along Winona Road.
f. Open Space and Landscaping: Private and common recreational area comply with Municipal Code standards and included amenities exceed the requirements of the Design Guidelines.
g. Utilities: Ample landscape area exists to screen utilities as needed. h. Walls and Fences: As conditioned walls and fences will coordinate with existing development.
i. Refuse Enclosures and Equipment: Refuse enclosures are located throughout the site and Conditions of Approval will ensure architectural compatibility. j. Drainage: The proposed retention basin is located at the north end of the site along Winona Road and proposed to be landscaped and fenced consistent with the rest of the development.
Architectural Design
a. Architectural Style: The Spanish style proposed includes arched elements and ornamental wall features and materials as well as multiple rooflines with Spanish tile and wood trellis features, consistent throughout the development. b. Scale and Massing: Multiple wall planes, variation in building footprints and facades, as well as various rooflines comply with the Design Guidelines. c. Garage Design: Carports have been utilized which include features of the primary buildings such as pitched roofs with Spanish tile. d. Entries and Windows: Front entries are linked by enhanced pedestrian connections and include identifiable arched entries.
e. Architectural Trim and Finish Materials: Trim and finish materials are consistent with the architectural theme proposed.
f. Additions and Accessory Buildings: All accessory building including laundry and gym facilities have coordinated architectural styles and materials with the proposed main structures.
2 0
9 5
g. Exterior Lighting: Lighting will coordinate with the proposed development and be designed to limit impacts to neighboring development as conditioned.

Site Characteristics:

Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Specific Plan
Site Undeveloped High Density Residential
& Commercial R-4&C-2 N/A
North Vacant High Density Residential R-4 N/A
South Fuel Station Commercial C-2 N/A
East Apartment Complex High Density Residential R-4 N/A West Church/School Commercial C-1 N/A
Number of Radius Letters Mailed: 22
Attachments:

Attachment A – General Plan Resolution No. P-22-010
Attachment B – Zone Change Resolution No. P-22-011
Attachment C – Site Plan Resolution No. P-22-012
Attachment D – General Plan and Zone Change Graphic
Attachment E – Site Plan Graphics
Attachment F – Initial Study
Attachment G – Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration w/Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
Attachment H – Aerial Image

Page 1 of 4 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT A
General Plan Amendment Resolution No.

P-22-010
P-22-010 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. P-22-010

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN20-00009, A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 212 UNIT MULTI-

FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-4 VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON TWO ACRES OF THE PROPOSED 12 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER

OF BALSAM ROAD AND THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET WHEREAS, an application has been received from Amir Aziz, regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 9th day of February 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the issue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan as it does not vary from the intent of the goal for balanced and well integrated land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment creates a consistent and compatible land use pattern and development density and intensity that is consistent with existing developments in the vicinity; and P-22-010 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment reduces future land use conflicts and results in a higher and better use as the parcel has limited visibility from the adjacent roadways, located behind a fuel station; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds changing the General Plan Designation to High Density does not affect the integrity of the neighborhood and it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the change to High Density Residential will further the City in reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals outlined by the State by increasing the affordable housing units capable of being developed by approximately 45 dwelling units based on the 2.36 acres proposed to be redesignated; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the Planning Commission, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the Planning Commission found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the loss of 2.36 acres of commercial zoning will not impact the City’s ability to provide adequate retail commercial areas nor negatively impact existing adjacent commercial developments as adequate landscape buffers and setbacks have been provided; and
P-22-010 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceeding upon which its decision is based shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, Article 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, that it recommends to the City Council that the General Plan Amendment portion of Case No. PLAN20- 00009 be approved.

Page 1 of 4 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT B
Zone Change Resolution No. P-22-011
P-22-011 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. P-22-011

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE

RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONE CHANGE PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN20-00009, A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 212 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY

APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-4 VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON TWO ACRES OF THE PROPOSED 12 ACRE

SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALSAM ROAD AND

THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been received from Amir Aziz, regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 9th day of February 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the issue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed Zone Change to R-4 Very High Density Residential as the site meets the minimum size requirements of the Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Zone Change to Very High Density Residential will have no adverse affect upon abutting property as the Zone P-22-011 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

Change will be consistent with the abutting development to the east and consistent with the larger ten acre portion of the project to the north of and abutting the subject parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment reduces future land use conflicts and results in a higher and better use as the parcel has limited visibility from the adjacent roadways, located behind a fuel station; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the change of 2.36 acres to Very High Density Residential with further the City in reaching the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals outlined by the State by increasing the affordable housing units capable of being developed by approximately 45 dwelling units based on the 2.36 acres proposed to be redesignated; and; WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the Planning Commission, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the Planning Commission found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the loss of 2.36 acres of commercial zoning will not impact the City’s ability to provide adequate retail commercial areas nor negatively impact existing adjacent commercial developments as adequate landscape buffers and setbacks have been provided; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceeding upon which its decision is based shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the of the Government Code of the State of California, P-22-011 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

that it recommends to the City Council that the Zone Change portion of Case No. PLAN20-00009 be approved.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT C
Site Plan Resolution No. P-22-012

Page 1 of 15 ends

RESOLUTION NO. P-22-012

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN PORTION CASE NO. PLAN20- 00009 – A SITE PLAN WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 212 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX AND A GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-4 VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON TWO ACRES OF THE PROPOSED 12 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALSAM ROAD AND THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WINONA STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been received from Amir Aziz, regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

PARCEL ONE: THE WEST ½ OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN

IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 9th day of February 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the issue; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Victorville Planning Department undertook and completed an Initial Study for the project, the result of which was the preparation and circulation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 2 of 13 ends

WHEREAS, the Initial Study, supporting documents, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Site Plan have been presented to the Planning Commission, and after review and consideration of the environmental information the Planning Commission found that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based, shall be located with the City of Victorville Clerk, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed use along with adequate development standards to ensure land use compatibility due to: a proposed dwelling unit density of approximately 19 units per acre in accordance with the site’s underlying R-4 (Very High Density Residential) zoning designation and High Density Residential General Plan designation that allows the 20 units per acre as proposed; the project’s conformance with all applicable development standards as conditioned including setbacks, parking, building height, and recreational space and amenities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed use does not meet the suspension allowances provided by Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001, Section

9.32.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code, or Section 16-5.12.190 of the Victorville Municipal Code for any unfinished right-of-way improvements or location of utilities underground, and that the suspension of any unfinished improvements or location of utilities underground may adversely affect the public’s health, safety and welfare; and therefore requires the construction of any unfinished right-of-way improvements and the location of utilities underground as required by the Victorville Municipal Code and conditions of approval contained within this resolution; and
P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 3 of 13 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(a) of the Victorville Municipal Code since: the location of the proposed apartment development includes setbacks and buffers exceeding Municipal Code requirements in order to prevent negative effects to privacy and match development in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the project will complement existing development in the vicinity and minimize impacts to surrounding properties by: providing setbacks along street frontages that match existing development; including buffers consisting of enhanced landscaping and increased setbacks; and by providing a quality multi-family development that meets or exceeds all development standards outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(c) of the Victorville Municipal Code as minimal disruption will occur to surrounding properties after completion of the construction activities on-site given the requirements to pay development impact fees and school fees, the requirement to complete the current unimproved Winona Street and the amenities provided on-site that will provide sufficient recreational opportunities for residents of the development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(d) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the development is proposed in accordance with the applicable development standards, regulations, and requirements of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(e) of the Victorville Municipal Code as the development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code have P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 4 of 13 ends

been satisfied including setbacks, buffers, parking, landscaping, amenities, building design, building size and height; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that providing decorative fencing and columns up to six feet in height and setback a minimum of fifteen feet from the property line at Balsam Road and Winona Street is allowable pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030(f) of the Victorville Municipal Code given the enhanced landscaping provided and to coordinate with existing fencing at the property line along Winona Street at the adjacent developed property, and that such an allowance will not be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare as no sight distance will be adversely impacted; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code that the Site Plan portion of Case No.

PLAN20-00009 to allow for the development of a 212 unit multi-family apartment complex and a General Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-2 General Commercial to R-4 Very High Density Residential on two acres of the proposed 12 acre site on the hereinabove described property be granted subject to the following conditions of approval:

Planning Conditions:

2. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable development standards of Title 16 and be in general compliance with the Multi-family Design Guidelines.

4. The development shall be in substantial conformity with the architectural elevations and renderings submitted with this application, unless modification is required by condition.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 5 of 13 ends

6. The number and location of all handicapped parking spaces shall be subject to Planning Department and Building Department review and approval.

10. A six-inch wide planter curbing, in accordance with Engineering Standard S-09, is required along the perimeter of any landscaped areas, including planters that abut the public right-of- way sidewalk. All planter strips abutting a public right-of-way and planter islands/landscape fingers shall be a minimum interior width of five feet, exclusive of curbing. The grading and site plans shall clearly show all required curbing.

11. The applicant/developer shall provide landscaping/irrigation plans in accordance with Chapter

12. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a neat, clean, orderly and healthful condition.

This includes proper pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary and the regular watering of all plants. In addition, all landscaped areas shall be provided with a suitable permanent water system.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 6 of 13 ends

17. All rooftop and/or ground mounted equipment visible from public rights-of-way shall be screened from view and architecturally integrated into the building.

18. Any wall mounted utility equipment (i.e. meters, panels, boxes, conduit etc.) shall not be visually exposed on the building. This type of equipment shall be internally located, screened with landscaping or covered in a manner that is architecturally integrated into the design of the building, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.

19. Roof drains (i.e. scuppers and down spouts) shall not be visually exposed on the building(s).

Roof drains shall be internally located, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.

22. The applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from any affected regulatory agencies.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 7 of 13 ends

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 8 of 13 ends

31. Should older Quaternary Alluvial deposits be encountered during site preparation activities, a qualified paleontologist shall oversee the excavations to ensure that any paleontological specimens are identified, recovered, analyzed, reported, and curated in accordance with CEQA and the County of San Bernardino policies and guidelines. This program should be conducted while these older deposits are impacted and while the paleontological consultant deems the program necessary.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 9 of 13 ends

Engineering Conditions:

35. The developer shall dedicate an easement for public right-of-way to the City of Victorville for the following in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan:
a. 34-feet from the centerline of improvements for Balsam Road. b. 47-feet from the centerline of improvements for Balsam Road for the dedicated right- turn pocket at Winona Road. The dedicated right turn pocket shall be a minimum of 300-feet long with a 60-foot taper for a total length of 360-feet measured from the BCR.
c. 34-feet from the centerline of improvements for Winona Street. d. Balsam Road and Winona Street SE Corner: Corner cut-off/chamfer to accommodate a 25-foot radius curb return and City standard accessibility ramp.

37. The developer shall install all improvements required by Section 9.32.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code (including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, pavement widening, drive approaches, street lighting, and drainage facilities) along the street frontages of the project, in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements of the City of Victorville. The required street improvements include:
a. Construction of street improvements on the Balsam Road frontage. Balsam Road is partially constructed and the developer shall provide for a grind & overlay to the centerline of improvements and a crack seal & slurry seal from curb to curb for the entire frontage.
b. Construction of street improvements on the Winona Street frontage. The developer shall install an additional 12-feet of pavement widening, an AC berm, and parkway grading on the opposite side of the street centerline as required by the City Engineer plus the standard parkway on the development side.
c. The installation of an ADA compliant ramp at the southeast corner of Balsam Road and Winona Street. Additional right-of-way dedication may be required to allow for the 25-foot radius return.
d. Installation of streetlights along the frontages of the property, per City Standards.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 10 of 13 ends

40. A signing and striping improvement plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.

48. A geotechnical report shall be submitted with and incorporated into the grading plan.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 11 of 13 ends

50. Temporary fencing shall be erected as required by City staff during construction to prevent windblown debris from leaving the project site and to ensure public safety.

52. Per the approved Water Feasibility Study, the developer shall construct an 8” water main extension on the Winona Street frontage.

55. The onsite water and sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained.

56. A permit issued from the City’s Engineering Department is required for the connection to the City’s sewer and water systems.

57. All public utility distribution lines, including service lines to the site, shall be installed by the developer.

58. The method of installation (trenching or boring) for connections to existing utilities (sewer, water, storm drain, etc.) within paved streets shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer.

60. Landscaping within the traffic sighting distance triangle at intersections and driveway connections to public streets shall be limited to ground cover only and shall not include shrubs and trees.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 12 of 13 ends

64. On-site drainage to streets shall be conveyed through parkway drains or as approved by the City Engineer.

Fire Conditions:

66. Shall comply with all Building and Fire Code requirements based on occupancy classification.

67. Monitored fire sprinkler system(s) are required for the proposed building(s). Plans shall be submitted prior to construction.

68. Monitored fire alarm system(s) are required for proposed building(s). Plans shall be submitted prior to construction.

70. An approved water supply system, complete with street hydrants complying with Fire Department Standards, shall be in place prior to any combustible construction.

71. Required fire flow for this project is tenatively 2,000gpm @ 20psi for a 2-hour duration at the furthest remote hydrant. Contact Water Department to assure availability of required fire flow.

72. Fire Department access roadways greater than 150’ in length shall require approved turnarounds per Fire Department Standard.

P-22-012 – PLAN20-00009 February 9, 2022

Page 13 of 13 ends

73. Projects that have more than Five (5) Fire hydrants and/or Fire Sprinkler Risers shall have a water system feed from two different distribution lines.

74. Knox Box/Key Box is required and shall be provided and installed in accordance with Fire Department Standards.

75. Access gates shall be provided with an “Opticom” receiver capable of opening gates via decoding of the “Opticom” strobe signal transmitted by Fire, Police, and Ambulance units.

All access gates shall require mechanical means for opening in event of power failure, shall not impinge on required clear width when fully open, and shall be equipped with Knox Box lock actuation devices.

Building Conditions:

76. The project shall comply with all building codes in effect at the time of plan submittal.

77. The scope of work indicated will require accessibility to be included in accordance with Chapter 11A of the California Building Code.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT D
General Plan Amendment / Zone Change
Graphic

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT E
Site Plan Graphics

3 STORY - 20 UNIT 3 STORY - 20 UNIT
3 STORY - 20 UNIT 3 STORY - 20 UNIT 3 STORY - 20 UNIT
POOLCLUBHOUSE 3 STORY - 20 UNIT
3 STORY - 20 UNIT

JACUZZI
910
23 11
6 4
8 5
GYM
LAUN
BLDGST TYP APT/FLTTL AREA1R2R3R1236127,322444 23282010,2720128 33282010,2720128 4318209,8824124 534820 10,163 0164 634820 10,163 0164 7318209,8824124 8318209,8824124 9318209,8824124 10318209,8824124 11318209,8824124 212107,4842813252

B A L S A M R D

N I S Q U A L L I
OPEN SPACE NO112,00025,67031,54045671,1808910116,090121314153,350 80,490
GENERAL PLAN:Multi-Family (20 du/ac)Z0NE:R - 4(High Density Residential (15-20 du/ac)LOT SIZE 498,372 S.F.NUMBER OF UNITS.ALLOWABLE: 20 UNIT PER ACRE498,372 S.F. / 43,560 S.F. = 11.44 ACRE20 UNITS X 11.44 = 228.82 UNITSPROVIDED:TOTAL PROVIDED UNITS: 212 UNITS ( 18.6 du/ac )FOOT PRINT:BLDGS = 107,484 S.F.CARPORTS PARKING AREA = 39,380 S.F.ACCESSORY BUILDINGS = 4,316 S.F. TOTAL = 151,180 S.F.LOT COVERAGE:151,180 S.F./ 498,372 = 30.33% < 40% OK.PARKING REQUIRED:1 BEDROOM UNIT 2 PER UNIT 28 X 2.0= 56 PARKING2 BEDROOMS UNITS 2 PER UNIT 132 X 2.0 = 264 PARKING3 BEDROOMS UNITS 2 PER UNIT 52 X 2.0 = 104 PARKINGTOTAL REQUIRED= 424 PARKINGPARKING PROVIDED: 214 CARPORTS + 210 STALLS =424 PARKING OKTOTAL LANDSCAPING AREA: = 204,040 S.F. /498,372 = 40.94%OPEN SPACE:REQUIRED:OPEN SPACE: 200 S.F./UNIT. EXCLUSIVE FRONT YARD224 UNIT X 200 = 44,800PROVIDED:PRIVATE OPEN SPACE :GROUND FLOOR - 150 SQ.FT/ UNITUPPER FLOORS - 75 SQ.FT/ UNITCOMMON OPEN SPACE 102,030 SQ. FT. /212 UNITS = 481.2 S.F. >200 S.F.

CLUB HOUSE 2,262 S.F.TABULATION:GYM. BANQUET 627 S.F.LAUNDRY 400 S.F.TOTAL 4,316 S.F.TOTAL

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

W I N O N ANOT A PART
1818192025

RENTALOFFICE
1 1816 1151623
18 110
19 181
182128
16 1819
19 189141520 181320 1681320191108169
18 10,650
11,000-SF13
917 SITE PLAN
1,155 S.F. (6 CARPORTS) X 19 = 21,945 S.F.TOTAL 39,380 S.F.CARPORTS1,355 S.F. (8 CARPORTS) X 10 = 13,550 S.F.777 S.F. (4 CARPORTS) X 5 = 3,885 S.F.4,50014 3,350-S.F.2
3568 6,9009
-DRY 3,400-S.F.4
11 5,800-SF16
3 STORY - 20 UNIT 3 STORY - 20 UNIT

JACUZZI
916
18 18

GYMLAUNJACUZZI -DRY
GYM. BANQUET 627 S.F.LAUNDRY 400 S.F. 163,50010,6501,5801,2502,6306,9004,9004,28011,970
7 3,000

SEWER EASEMENT

FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT

SEWER EASEMENTSEWER EASEMENTSEWER EASEMENT
27 1 6,400-S.F.12
7 3 STORY - 20 UNIT 0810
01 1 2 STORY - 12 UNIT1,25010
169
8 9

NOPARKING

NOPARKING
811
917
8 8
912
162434
9 16
NOPARKING919
1 10

NOPARKING
1112
1011
1 11,800 9

LAUN-DRYTOTAL
UNITS PERBLDG12202020202020
202020202020212 UNITS

TRASHFLOOR PLAN
DETAIL AS PER CITY STANDARDS TRASH DETAILFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-23841150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C TSHEET TITLE:

VICINITY MAP

SUBJECT PROPERTY

GEORGEBEHNAM
NORTH
SITE PLANMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZCAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:DATE :DWG SCALE:CHECKED BY: 190401 MM. MM. NOTED06-11-19SHEET :S-P1 OF 9 E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:08 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 2ND FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 1W.I.C

FRIDGEENTRYLIVING PATIOKITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
W.I.C
FRIDGE

ENTRYLIVING
PATIO

KITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
W.I.C

FRIDGEENTRYLIVING PATIOKITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
W.I.C
FRIDGE

ENTRYLIVING
PATIO

KITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
TYPE 1- BLDG 4,7,8,9,10,11TOTAL UNITS =9,882 SF1 BEDROOM = 687 SF2 BEDROOM = 962 SF3 BEDROOM = 1,085 SF1ST FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 1 DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
2 OF 9 A-1TYPE - 1FLOOR PLANS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20
GEORGEBEHNAMMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:17 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 3RD FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 1
MAIN ELEVATION - TYPE 1

LEFT ELEVATION

RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION IS MIRRORBACK ELEVATION ROOF PLAN - TYPE 1
DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
3 OF 9 A - 2ELEVATIONSFLOOR PLANS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20
GEORGEBEHNAMMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ TYPE - 1
E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:25 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 TYPE 2 - BLDG 2,3TOTAL UNITS =10,272 SF2 BEDROOM = 962 SF3 BEDROOM = 1027 SF1ST FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 2 2ND FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 2
DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
4 OF 9 A - 3FLOOR PLANS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20
GEORGEBEHNAMMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ TYPE - 2
E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:32 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 3RD FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 2ROOF PLAN - TYPE 2
MAIN ELEVATION - TYPE 2

RIGHT ELEVATIONBACK ELEVATION

LEFT ELEVATION IS MIRROR
-TYPE 2-TYPE 2
DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
5 OF 9 A-4FLOOR PLANS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20
GEORGEBEHNAMMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ TYPE - 2ELEVATIONS
E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 MAIN ELEVATION - TYPE 3
W.I.C

FRIDGEENTRYLIVING PATIOKITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
W.I.C
FRIDGE

ENTRYLIVING PATIO

KITCHEN
M.BEDROOM
BATH
TYPE 3- BLDG 1TOTAL UNITS = 7,322 SF1 BEDROOM = 687 SF2 BEDROOM = 962 SF3 BEDROOM = 1,085 SF REAR ELEVATION - TYPE 3
SIDE ELEVATION - TYPE 3
SIDE ELEVATION - TYPE 3
ROOF PLAN - TYPE 3
DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
6 OF 9 A-5FLOOR PLANS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20
GEORGEBEHNAMMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ TYPE - 3ELEVATIONS
E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:52 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3

NOOKBEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONYBEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONY BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONYBEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONYBEDROOM-1BEDROOMMASTER CORRIDORBEDROOM-2LIVINGBALCONY BEDROOM-1BEDROOMMASTER CORRIDORBEDROOM-2LIVINGKITCHENBATHBATH

BALCONY
CORRIDORW.I.C.

NOOK

BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOM

LIVINGBALCONY
W.I.C.

NOOK

BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONY
TYPE 4- BLDG 5,62 BEDROOM = 687 SF2 BEDROOM = 962 SF3 BEDROOM = 1,027 SF1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 4

BALCONY
CORRIDORW.I.C.

NOOK

BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOM

LIVINGBALCONY
W.I.C.

NOOK

BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMLIVINGBALCONY
TYPE 4- BLDG 5,62 BEDROOM = 687 SF2 BEDROOM = 962 SF3 BEDROOM = 1,027 SF1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 4 DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
7 OF 9 A - 6
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20

GEORGEBEHNAM
TYPE - 4FLOOR PLANSMULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:42:59 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 3RD FLOOR PLAN - TYPE 4
ROOF PLAN - TYPE 1BACK ELEVATION
MAIN ELEVATION - TYPE 2

RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION IS MIRROR
DATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
8 OF 9 A - 7 ELEVATIONS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED03-02-20

GEORGEBEHNAM
TYPE - 4FLOOR PLANS& MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:43:09 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 OFFICE / REC. ROOM LEFT ELEVATION
OFFICE / REC. ROOM RIGHT ELEVATION
OFFICE / REC. ROOM REAR ELEVATION
OFFICE / REC. ROOM FRONT ELEVATION
OFFICE-1OFFICE-2
HALL

KITCHEN
ENRTY

MENWOMENLAUNDRYBATHSHOWERSTRG
OFFICE / RECREATION ROOM FLOOR PLANHIPDATEREVISIONSFAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384CAD FILE:PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109PLACENTIA, CA 92870GEORGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T DATE :DWG SCALE:SHEET TITLE:SHEET
CHECKED BY:
9 OF 9 A - 8 ELEVATIONS
190401 MM. MM. NOTED06-11-19

GEORGEBEHNAM
CLUB HOUSEFLOOR PLANS& MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT:DEVELOPERA.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02VICOTR VILLE, CAAZIZ LLC. 495 E. RICON ST.CORONA, CAAPARTMENT UNITSMR, ASHRAF AZIZ E:\Site-11-25-19-AZIZ.dwg, 3/3/2020 9:43:21 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
DRAWN

APPROVED
JOB NO.

DATE
SCALE
PROJECT:

REVISIONS
JA
SC

AS SHOWN
02-19-20

MULTI-FAMILY
A.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02

VICOTR VILLE, CA

APARTMENT UNITS
S.R. CLARKE LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTURE &

DEVELOPMENT
110 COPPERWOOD WAY # P
O C E A N S I D E C A 9 2 0 5 8
P H . # 7 6 0 - 7 1 6 - 3 1 0 0
L L A # 5 2 9 9

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
& DEVELOPMENT
S.R. CLARKE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
& DEVELOPMENTAL

DESNECIL

TCETI HCRA
NO.5299
P
STATE
OF
CALIFO
AINR
AES
EKRALC
R.

N
01-31-22

RENEWAL DATE
02-19-21

STAMP DATE
A
SD
N
C
E
0 SCALE: - 1" =20'
40' 20' 10'

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN

COLOR RENDERING

ENHANCE PAVER
ENTRY
PALM TREE TYPICAL.

SHADE TREE 1 TYPICAL
SHADE TREE 2 TYPICAL
SHADE TREE 3 TYPICAL

BIO RETENTION
BASIN
ACCENT TREE 1 TYPICAL
ACCENT TREE 2 TYPICAL

CRUSHED ROCK MULCHSMALL SHRUB TYPICALMEDIUM SHRUB TYPICAL

FIRE ACCESS LANE

GROUND COVER TYPICAL

LARCH SHRUB TYPICAL

ACCENT SHRUB TYPICAL
NORTH
L4 of 4

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT F
Initial Study

BALSAM AND WINONA VICTORVILLE

APARTMENTS PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

Prepared for:

City of Victorville Development Department
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, CA 92393

Prepared by:

Lilburn Corporation
1905 Business Center Drive, South
San Bernardino, CA 92408

November 2021

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp Page i
Table of Contents
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................... 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ......................................................................................... 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 7 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................................. 8 I. Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................... 9 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................................. 11 III. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 13 IV. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 19 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 24 VI. Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 26 VII. Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 29 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 34 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................... 36 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 39 XI. Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................ 43 XII. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 44 XIII. Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 45 XIV. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 48 XV. Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 49 XVI. Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 51 XVII. Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 52 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 54 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 56 XX. Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 60 XXI. Mandatory Finding of Significance .......................................................................................... 62

List of Figures

1. Regional Location ............................................................................................................................2

2. Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................................3

3. Site Plan ..........................................................................................................................................5

List of Tables

1. State and Federal Air Quality Designations and Classification .....................................................14

2. Construction Emissions Summary .................................................................................................16

3. Operational Emissions Summary ...................................................................................................17

4. Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions ........................................................................................35

5. Units Required by Income .............................................................................................................48

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 1 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Project Title: Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Victorville
Planning Department
14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001
Victorville, CA 92393

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Travis Clark
City of Victorville Planning Division
Associate Planner
(951) 987-0434

4. Project Location: APN 3092-401-01, -02 and -07

5. Project Sponsor: Aziz, LLC.

Amir Aziz
[email protected]
858-729-3491

6. General Plan Designation(s): High Density Residential/Commercial

7. Zoning Designation: R-4 (High Density Residential)/C-2 (General Business)

8. Description of Project and Existing Setting:

Project Overview
Aziz, LLC is requesting the entitlement of a Site Plan to allow for the development of a 212-unit residential apartment development in the City of Victorville. The Project Site occurs on three parcels (APN 3092- 401-01, 3092 -401-02 and 3092 -401-07) between Nisquali Road and Winona Street on approximately

11.4 acres (see Figure 1-Regional Location and Figure 2-Project Vicinity). The General Plan designation for APN 3092 -401-01 and -02 is High Density Resi dential (HDR) with a zoning of Multi -Family Residential (R-4) which is an allowable use under the current land use designations. The General Plan designation for APN 3092 -401-07 is Commercial (COM) with Zoning of General Commercial (C -2).

Approval of a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment are also part of the Application and would be required for APN 3092-401-07 to change the General Plan designation from commercial to HDR and to change the zoning to R -4. City staff would process the Zone Change upon appr oval of the General Plan Amendment and Site Plan.

REGIONAL LOCATION
LILBURNC O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 1
Balsam and Winona Apartments
City of Victorville, CaliforniaSource: Lilburn Corp., June, 2021.

Mile

0.750

PROJECT SITE

LILBURNC O R P O R A T I O N
Source: Lilburn Corp., June, 2021.

Feet
3500 PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE 2
Balsam and Winona Apartments
City of Victorville, California
Nisqualli Rd
Balsam Rd
PROJECT SITEWinona Rd
Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 4 ends

The Proposed Project includes 10 three -story buildings and one two -story building to include 212 apartment units, three laundry rooms, one clubhouse and a rental office, plus amenities (e.g. pool, jacuzzies, gyms) for a footprint totaling 151,180 square-feet of the 498,372 square-foot lot. The apartment units will be one-bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom. Common open space is proposed throughout the complex and totals 102,030 square-feet. The Proposed Project includes 214 carports and 210 parking stalls for a total of 424 parking spaces provided for residents. Access to the Project Site is proposed via a main entrance at Winona Street and three additional gated accesses are proposed along Balsam Road (See Figure 3-Site Plan). Furthermore, uses adjacent to the Project Site include an apartment complex to the east, single-family residential to the south, a school to the west and vacant land to the north.

Project History and Background

The 11.4-acre Project Site was purchased by the applicant with the intent to develop a 212-unit residential apartment development. The rapidly growing population in the City and geographical location of the project provides an ideal opportunity to provide residential units for the City’s residents.

Proposed Operations

A 212-unit apartment complex would serve as a residential community for future and existing residents in the City of Victorville.

Access

The project would include a primary entrance/exit, three additional gated accesses proposed along Balsam Road and an emergency entrance/exit for a total of five access points . The primary entrance/exit would be located on the north edge of the Project Site and would be accessed from Winona Street . The emergency entrance/exit would be located on the south edge of the Project Site and would be a ccessed from Nisqualli Road (See Figure 3).

Construction and Schedule

The Proposed Project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than October 2021 and should be completed by mid -December 2022. The Proposed Project would be fully operational in 2023.

Construction would consist of site preparation, grading, paving, building construction and architectural coating.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Existing Setting:

The Project Site is surrounded by the following land uses (See Figure 2):

• North Property Line – Vacant land (Zoned for R-4)
• East Property Line – Apartment complex (Zoned for R-4T) • South Property Line – Residential (Zoned for R-1)
• West Property Line – Victor Valley Christian School (Zoned for C-1)

LILBURNC O R P O R A T I O N

SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3
Balsam and Winona Apartments
City of Victorville, California
FAX(714)572-2385(714)572-2384
1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109
PLACENTIA, CA 92870

GEORGE BEHNAM

A R C H I T E C T

VICINITY MAP

SUBJECT PROPERTY

GEORGE BEHNAMSITE PLAN
PROJECT: DEVELOPER
A.P.N. 309-401-01 & 02

VICOTR VILLE, CA
495 E. RICON ST.

CORONA, CA
190401
MM.

MM.

NOTED
06-11-19
S-P
1 OF 9
Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 6 ends

10. Other Public Agencies

The following permits and regulations are applicable to the project and involve other public agencies whose approval may be required:

• Mojave Water Agency
• Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District

11. Tribal Consultation

The City of Victorville commenced the AB 52 process by sending out consultation invitation letters to tribes previously requesting notification, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) responded to the notification and requested the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project and other project plans. After review of the project, the SMBMI did not have concerns with the proj ect’s implementation. The SMBMI did suggest Mitigation Measures for Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources that have been included as Mitigation Measures in this Initial Study.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 7 ends

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use /Planning Transportation Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Tribal Cultural Resources
Energy Mineral Resources Utilities /Service Systems
Geology/Soils Noise Wildfire

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 9 ends

I. 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 a publicly acc essible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

Existing Environmental Setting
The City’s General Plan Resource Element recognizes the protection of local scenic resources as necessary for maintaining the overall livability and aesthetic qualities of the City. Joshua trees are a notable aesthetic feature in the City in addition to being protected under the California Endangered Species Act. The Joshua tree is a locally protected archetypal p lant of the Mojave Desert that may live several hundred years and provides habitat for a variety of native wildlife species.

Discussion
a-b. The Project Site is not within a state scenic highway and there are no identifiable scenic vistas in the immediate area according to the Caltrans California State Scenic Highway System Map .1 There are no identifiable scenic resources within the Project Site, such as historic buildings or rock outcroppings. There are 14 Joshua trees that have been documented on -site. Mitigation for any impacts to Joshua trees, including removal would occur in accordance with the September 2020, California Fish and Game Commission’s listing of the western Joshua tree under the California Endangered Species Act to protect the species for at least one year.

c. The Proposed Project would involve the development of 11 apartment buildings for residential use. The City’s General Plan and Development Code assumes and permits this type of development and provides development standards such as height restrictions and other design guidelines which are intended to reduce any potential degradation to visual character and quality of public views. The Proposed Project would not

1 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983. Accessed 6/16/21.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 10 ends

substantially degrade the existing visual character or degrade any existing public views that are publicly accessible from a vantage point . The General Plan designation for APN 3092 -401-01 and -02 is High Density Residential (HDR) with a zoning of Multi-Family Residential (R-4) in which the Proposed Project is an allowable use under the current land use designations. The General Plan designation for APN 3092- 401-07 is Commercial (COM) with Zoning of General Commercial (C -2). Upon a pproval of a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment for APN 3092 -401-07 to change the General Plan designation to HDR and to change the zoning to R -4, the entire Project Site would be in conformance with the General Plan and the Proposed Project would be an allowable use. Furthermore, uses adjacent to the Project Site include an apartment complex to the east, single-family residential to the south, a school to the west and vacant land to the north. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be comparable to adjacent uses and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The development of the apartment complex would not generate a significant amount of light and glare when compared to the surrounding area which includes existing lighting from urban development including streetlighting and residential lighting. The design and placement of light fixtures within the future new development would be reviewed for consistency with City sta ndards and subject to City - approval. Standards require shielding, diffusing, and indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting would be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to on -site streets. Lighting would be consistent with adjacent res idential development to the south and east and the school to the west. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

References
Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed June 16, 2021 from https://www.ar- cgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 11 ends

II. Agriculture and Forest Resources Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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, incl uding 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 the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewid e Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion
a. The California Department of Conservation identifies the Project Site as “Grazing Land.2” Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. No prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance occurs at the Project Site or in its immediate vicinity.

Development of the Project Site would therefore not convert farmland to a non -agricultural use. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

b. The Project Site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. San Bernardino County does not hold any Williamson Act contracts on properties within the city limits .3 Future Williamson Act contracts are not

2 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ Accessed May 17, 2021. 3 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcb9bc427d2a4c5a981f97547a0e3688 Accessed May 17, 2021.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 12 ends

anticipated because no agriculturally zoned land exists in the City. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

c. The Project Site is currently zoned High Density Residential and General Commercial. Upon approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the General Commercial zone on one parcel would change to High Density Residential. Implementation of the Propos ed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. The Project Site is within a predominantly urbanized area and forest land, timberland, or timberland zone designations do not occur in the vicinity. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The Project Site is located in the High Desert and does not support forest land. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

e. As stated previously, the Project Site is identified as “Grazing Land.” There will be no loss of farmland use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project.

Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

References
California Department of Conservation, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed May 17, 2021 at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

California Department of Conservation, 2020. San Bernardino County Williamson Contract.Accessed May 17, 2021 at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcb9bc427d2a4c- 5a981f97-547a0e3688
Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 13 ends

III. Air Quality
Where applicable, 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 substanti al number of
people?

Existing Environmental Setting
The Project Site is in San Bernardino County within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes.

Many of the lower mountains throughout the vast terrain rise from 1,000 to 4,000 feet above the valley floor. Prevailing winds in the MDAB are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the MDAB to coastal and central regions and the blocking nature of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north; air masses pushed onshore in southern California by differential heating are channeled through the MDAB. The MDAB is separated from the southern California coastal and central California valley regions by mountains (highest elevation appr oximately 10,000 feet), whose passes form the main channels for these air masses. The MDAB is bordered in the southwest by the San Bernardino Mountains, separated from the San Gabriel Mountains by the Cajon Pass (4,200 feet). A lesser channel lies between the San Bernardino Mountains and the Little San Bernardino Mountains (the Morongo Valley).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), establishes maximum ambient concentrations for seven criteria air pollutant s (CAPs). These maximum concentrations are known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs). The seven CAPs are ozone (O 3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

For areas within the State that have not attained air quality standards, the CARB works with local air districts to develop and implement attainment plans to obtain compliance with both federal and State air quality standards. The local air district with jurisdiction over the Project Site is the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 14 ends

Discussion
a. The MDAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the air quality attainment plan (AQAP) for the MDAB. Regional AQAPs were adopted in 1991, 1994, and 1997. The following the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and AQAP are the currently approved plans for the Basin region:

• 1997 SIP for O3, PM10, and NO2
• 1995 Mojave Desert Planning Area Federal PM10 Attainment Plan; no formal action by the EPA

The MDAQMD completed the MDAQMD 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan (State and federal) in April 2004, which has been approved by the EPA. According to the MDAQMD, a project is non-conforming if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan. A project is conforming if it complies with all applicable MDAQMD rules and regulation s, complies with all proposed control measures that are not yet adopted from the applicable plan(s), and it is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included in the applicable plan).

The federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act were established in an effort to assure that acceptable levels of air quality are maintained. These levels are based upon health-related exposure limits and are referred to as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The ambient air quality standards establish maximum allowable concentrations of specific pollutants in the atmosphere and characterize the amount of exposure deemed safe for the public. Areas that meet the standards are designated attainment and if found to be in violation of primary standards are designated as nonattainment areas.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CARB have designated portions of the MDAQMD as nonattainment f or a variety of pollutants, and some of those designations have an associated classification. Table 1 lists these designations and classifications. The MDAQMD has adopted attainment plans for a variety of nonattainment pollutants.

Table 1
State and Federal Air Quality
Designations and Classifications
Ambient Air Quality Standard Status
Eight-hour Ozone
(Federal 70 ppb (2015))
Expected Non -attainment; to be
determined.

Ozone (State) Non-attainment; classified Moderate
PM10 (24-hour Federal)
Non-attainment; classified Moderate
(portion of MDAQMD in Riverside
County is unclassifiable/attainment)
PM2.5 (Annual Federal) Unclassified/attainment
PM2.5 (24-hour Federal) Unclassified/attainment
PM2.5 (State) Non-attainment (portion of MDAQMD
outside of Western Mojave Desert Ozone
Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 15 ends

Ambient Air Quality Standard Status
Non-Attainment Area is
unclassified/attainment)
PM10 (State) Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide (State and
Federal)
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (State and
Federal)
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (State and
Federal)
Attainment/unclassified
Lead (State and Federal) Unclassifiable/Attainment
Particulate Sulfate (State) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (State) Unclassified (Searles Valley Planning Area is non-attainment)
Visibility Reducing Particles
(State)
Unclassified
Source: MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016

The proposed project includes development of the approximately 11.44 -acre project site with 212 apartment dwelling units. The project is on three parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 3092-401-01, 3092-401-02 and 3092 -401-07. Per the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 Land Use and Zoning Districts Map, the current land use for APB 3092 -401-01 and -02 is High Density Residential (15-20 du/ac) and the current zoning is R-4 Multi-Family (15-20 du/ac). Therefore, at 18.6 dwelling units per acre, the project is an allowable use under the current land use designations for these tw o parcels; however, APN 3092 -401-07 has a current land use designation of Commercial (COM) and a current zoning of General Commercial (C-2). The project includes a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the land use of APN 3092-401-07 to HDR and the zoning to R-4.

An Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated December 31, 2020, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc., for the Proposed Project The proposed project is not currently consistent with all of the existing land use and zoning designations. However, once the Change of Zone and General Plan Amendment are approved, the project would be consistent with the zoning and land use designations. According to the Ganddini report, a lthough the project, Change of Zone and Gen eral Plan Amendment may initially result in an inconsistency with the Attainment Plan on paper, the inconsistency would not necessarily constitute a conflict with the Attainment Plan. Furthermore, as a residential use is a less intensive use than a commerc ial use, the proposed residential use is not expected to increase the number of trips, and/or increase the overall vehicle miles traveled over what would occur with development of the parcel as a commercial use. The MDAQMD acknowledges that strict consistency with all aspects of the Attainment Plan is not required in order to make a finding of no conflict. Rather, a project is considered to be consistent with the Attainment Plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The p roject would implement contemporary energy -efficient technologies and regulatory/operational programs required per Title 24, CALGreen and City standards.

Generally, compliance with MDAQMD emissions reductions and control requirements also act to reduce project air pollutant emissions. In combination, project emissions -reducing design features and regulatory/operational programs are consistent with and support overarching Attainment Plan air pollution reduction strategies. Project support of these strategi es promotes timely attainment of Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 16 ends

Attainment Plan air quality standards and would bring the project into conformance with the Attainment Plan. As shown by the results of this air analysis, the project's emissions do not exceed any MDAQMD thresholds during e ither short-term construction or long -term operation of the project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the Attainment Plan assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the Attainment Plan for the second cri terion. Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of the MDAQMD Attainment Plans, impacts are considered to be less than significant. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

b. An Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated December 31, 2020, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc. for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were screened using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 prepared by the SCAQMD. CalEEMod was used to estimate the on -site and off -site construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403 by default as required during construction.

Construction Emissions

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would have the potential to generate air emissions and toxic air contaminant emissions. The Proposed Project has been anticipated in the modeling to start construction no sooner than May 2021 and to be completed no sooner than December 2022. The resulting emissions generated by construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 2, below.

Table 2
Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Grading 4.27 46.45 31.51 0.06 5.53 3.27
Building Construction 3.44 26.72 28.18 0.08 4.18 1.79
Paving 1.39 11.16 15.01 0.02 0.69 0.56
Architectural Coating 114.68 1.55 3.64 0.01 0.60 0.22
Total for overlapping
phases3 119.51 39.43 46.83 0.11 5.48 2.57
MDAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 137 82 82
Significant No No No No No No
Source: Ganddini Group, Inc. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis. December 31, 2020. Table 6.

3. Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap.

As shown Table 2, the anticipated construction emissions are less than the MDAQMD thresholds and would be considered less than significant. The Proposed Project shall comply with MDAQMD Rules 402 and 403, as listed below.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 17 ends

Compliance with MDAQMD Rules 402 and 403

Although the Proposed Project does not exceed MDAQMD thresholds, the Applicant is required to comply with applicable MDAQMD Rules 402 for nuisance and 403 for fugitive dust control. This would include, but not be limited to the following:

1. The Project Proponent shall ensure that any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre-watered prior to the onset of grading activities.

2. The Project Proponent shall ensure that watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site.

Portions of the site that are actively being used shall be watered to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface and shall be watered at the end of each workday.

3. The Project Proponent shall ensure that disturbed areas are treated to prevent erosion.

4. The Project Proponent shall ensure that ground disturbing activities are suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.

Although the Proposed Project would not exceed MDAQMD thresholds for exhaust emissions during operations, the Applicant would be required to implement the following conditions as required by MDAQMD:

5. All equipment must be tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specification to maximize efficient burning of vehicle fuel.

6. The operator shall comply with all existing and future CARB and MDAQMD Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulations related to diesel -fueled trucks, which may include among others:
(1) meeting more stringent emission standards; (2) retrofitting existing engines with particulate traps; (3) use of low sulfur fuel; and (4) use of alternative fuels or equipment.

Operation Emissions

Operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end use), area (operational use of the project), and mobile (vehicle trips). Operational emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 and are listed in Table 3, below.

Table 3
Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 14.38 14.38 14.38 14.38 14.38 14.38
Energy 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Mobile 0.35 2.69 4.11 0.02 1.26 0.35
Total Emissions 14.75 2.69 4.11 0.02 1.26 0.35
MDAQMD Threshold 25 25 100 25 15 15
Significance No No No No No No
Source: Ganddini Group, Inc. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis. December 31, 2020. Table 7.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 18 ends

As shown on Table 3, annual operational emissions are below MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in an existing or projected air quality violation. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c. The MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines 4 define sensitive receptor land uses as residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities. The following project types for sites within the specified distance of existing or planned sensitive receptor land uses must be evaluated using the MDAQMD’s health risk significance thresholds:

a. Any industrial project within 1,000 feet;
b. A distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet; c. A major transportation project (50,000 or more vehicles per day) within 1,000 feet; d. A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and e. A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.

The Proposed Project does not meet the criteria for a project type which is subject to sensitive receptor significance threshold evaluation. The Proposed Project includes residential development. Furthermore, the modeling results shown previously indic ate that development of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed MDAQMD emissions thresholds. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The Proposed Project is residential which is a land use typically not associated with the emissions of objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the Proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust; however, standard construction requirements would minim ize odor impacts resulting from construction activity. It should be noted that any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction activity. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

References
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan (State and Federal), April 26, 2004, http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showdocument?id=174

Ganddini Group, Inc. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis. December 31, 2020.

4 Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016, http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showdocument?id=538
Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 19 ends

IV. 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 Fis h
and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA
Fisheries?

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 Wildlife or U.S.

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 local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Existing Environmental Setting
A General Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the Proposed Project by RCA Associates, dated June 2020 (see Appendix B for report). The BRA was designed to address potential effects of the Proposed Project to designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Biological surveys were conducted Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 20 ends

on a 11.44-acre parcel located at the corner of Nisqualli Road and Balsam Road in the City of Victorville, California (Township 5 North, Range 4 West, Section 29, USGS Hesperia, California Quadrangle, 1956) (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). Focused surveys were also performed for the desert tortoise and burrowing owl.

The site does show signs of being disturbed in the past by various human activities (i.e., off-road vehicles, trash dumping, etc.); however, most of the site supports na tive vegetation. The property supports a creosote community consisting of Joshua trees ( Yucca brevifolia ), creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata ), rubberbrush ( Ericameria nauseosa ), Indian ricegrass ( Oryzopsis hymenoides ), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), desert needle ( Stipa speciosa), Nevada joint fir ( Ephedra nevadensis), and brome grasses (Bromus sp.).

In September 2020, the Joshua tree was listed as a candidate endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. Because Joshua trees were identified on the site during the June 17, 2020 surveys, a second update to the General Biological Resou rces Assessment report was prepared by RCA and dated October 13, 2021 (see Appendix B-1 for report). Findings of that report related to the Joshua tree are also discussed herein.

Discussion
a. Field surveys were carried out by RCA on June 17, 2020 and on September 30, 2021 to collect data on the plant and animal species present on the site. The property was also evaluated for the presence of habitats which might support sensitive species. Following completion of the initial reconnaissance survey, protocol surveys were conducted for the desert tortoise and burrowing owl as per agency requirements, and a habitat assessment was performed for the Mohave ground squirrel.

As part of the BRA a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was performed Based on the CNDDB database, it was determined that 14 special status species have been documented within the Hesperia quad of the property. As observed during the field survey, the Project Site supports a creosote community which covers most of the property. Species present on the site included creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), rubberbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), rabbitbrush (Ericamerica nauseosa var), desert needle (Stipa speciosa), and Indian ricegrass ( Oryzopsis hymenoides ). Birds observed included ravens ( Corvus corax ), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae) and Say's phoebe ( Sayornis saya ). Black -tailed jackrabbit ( Calypte costae ) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni) were observed on the site. Coyotes were seen on the property, and are known to occur in the area traversing the site during hunting ac tivities. Antelope ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus leucurus) and Merriam’s kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys merriamii) may also occur on the site given their wide -spread distribution in the region. Reptiles observed during the survey include desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and western whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus tigris ). No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.

The habitat assessments were conducted for the desert tortoise, and focused surveys were performed for the presence of any potential tortoise burrows by RCA. The Project Site is located within the documented tortoise habitat according to CNDDB with the nearest documented sighting approximately 4.5-miles northwest of the property (CNDDB, 2020). The property supports marginal habitat for the desert tortoise based on the location of the Project Site in a developed area of Victorville. No tortoises or tortoise sign s Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 21 ends

(burrows, scats, etc.) were observed anywhere within the property boundaries during the field survey. The species is not expected to move onto the site in the near future based on the absence of any sign, absence of any recent observations in the immediate area, and the presence of busy roadways and developments in the immediate area. The developments which border the site act as barriers to migration of tortoises onto the site. Therefore, impacts to desert tortoise are considered less than significant.

A survey was conducted for the Mohave ground squirrel during the June 17, 2020 field survey. Part of the assessment included evaluation of documented local populations an d assessment of connectivity with other habitats in the surrounding area which might support populations of the Mohave ground squirrel.

The nearest documented observation of the Mohave ground squirrel is approximately 4 -miles southeast of the property. Due to the very low population levels and no recent observations in the immediate area surrounding the site, the probability of the species currently inhabiting the site is relatively low. Therefore, impacts to Mohave ground squirrel are considered less than significant.

The Burrowing Owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ) is a resident species in lowland areas of southern California. It prefers open areas for foraging and burrowing and is found widely scattered in open desert scrub. This species is scarce in coas tal areas, being found mainly in agricultural and grassland habitats.

The Burrowing Owl is considered a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. Burrowing Owl p opulations in California are considered to be sedentary or locally migratory. The Burrowing Owl is not listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Act but is considered both a federal and state Species of Special Concern. The Burrowing Owl is a migratory bird protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code The Project Site is located within documented burrowing owl habitat according to CNDDB with the nearest documented sighting approximately 0.25-miles east of the property (CNDDB, 2020). No owls or owl sign (whitewash, castings, etc.) were seen on the property during the survey or at the entrances of the few suitable (i.e., occupiable) burrows observed on the site. The species is relatively mobile and could potentially occur on the Project Site in the future; therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

The only protected plants which were observed on the site include 14 Joshua trees which were scattered throughout the property. As of September 22, 2020, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife temporarily listed the western Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) as an endangered species for one year until a final decision is made in 2021. The site contains multiple Joshua trees, and any attempt to remove a Joshua tree, dead or alive, from its current position will require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Because the western Joshua tree is a candidate species in the initial stages of consideration for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA, an application for an ITP will be submitted to the CDFW. An ITP establishes a performance standard requiring that the impacts be “minimized and fully mitigated” with “measures that are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the auth orized taking on the species.” 5 Therefore, additional mitigation measures, such as the purchase of credits from a conservation or mitigation bank or entry into a conservation easement , will be determined in consultation with CDFW to meet ITP requirements. Because the western Joshua tree was designated as a candidate species and is still subject

5 FISH & G. CODE § 2081(B); CAL. CODE REGS., TIT. 14, §§ 783.2-783.8 Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 22 ends

to a status review by the CDFW, it is impractical to determine the specific details of mitigation, beyond compliance with the ITP.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 will reduce impacts to less than significant. An ITP establishes a performance standard requiring that the impacts be minimized and fully mitigated with measures that are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the auth orized taking on the species. Therefore, additional mitigation measures, such as the purchase of credits from a conservation or mitigation bank or entry into a conservation easement, will be determined in consultation with CDFW to meet ITP requirements.

Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls , desert tortoise, and nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code shall be conducted prior to the commencement of Project -related ground disturbance.

A. Appropriate survey methods and timeframes shall be established, to ensure that chances of detecting the target species are maximized. In the event that listed species, such as the desert tortoise, are encountered, authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW must be obtained. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance measures shall be implemented to ensure that nests are not disturbed until after young have fledged.

B. Pre-construction surveys shall encompass all areas withi n the potential footprint of disturbance for the project, as well as a reasonable buffer around these areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to the implementation of the recommended measures outlined in the Protected Plant Preservation Plan, an ITP shall be obtained from CDFW for any Joshua Tree on - site removed from its current position as deemed applicable by the CDFW . CDFW may require the preparation of additional habitat assessments prior the issuance of an ITP; any such requirement, as well as mitigation for the loss of trees will be established by CDFW and incorporated into the City’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project.

c. The Project Site is not located within riparian habitat identified in local or regiona l plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Project Site does not include any state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. Wildlife corridors repres ent areas where wildlife movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints. Local corridors provide access to resources such as food, water, and shelter.

Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or riparian areas, to move between different habitats.

Regional corridors provide these functions and link two or more large habitat areas. The BRA concluded that no distinct wildlife corridors were identified on the Project Site or in the immediate area. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

e. A Protected Plant Preservation Plan (PPRP), dated November 2, 2018, was completed by RCA Associates, Inc. (RCA) in compliance with the County of San Bernardino and City of Victorville Ordinances protecting native desert plants. The PPRP identified 14 Joshua Trees (Yucca brevifolia) on the Project Site. Following the analysis of each tree it was determined that 8 of the 14 Joshua trees (58%) are suitable for transplanting. The remaining trees (6) were determined to be unsuitable for transplanting due Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 23 ends

to a variety of factors such as; size, condition, damage, possibly disease, etc. for a variety of wildlife species including desert wood rats (Neotoma sp.) and night lizards (Xantusia sp.) both of which utilize the base of the trees. A variety of birds also utilize Joshua trees for nesting such as hawks, common ravens, and cactus wrens. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) consider Joshua tree woodlands as areas that support relatively high species diversity and as such are considered to be a sensitive desert communities. Joshua trees are also considered a significant resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are included in the Desert Plant Protection Act, Food and A gricultural Code (80001-80006).

Any Joshua trees that are not suitable for relocation/transplanting due to size, health of the tree, presence of damage, excessive branches, and exposed roots may require compensation as determined by the CDFW ITP process as discussed above.

f. The City of Victorville General Plan does not identify the Project Site, nor the vicinity to be within a Habitat Conservation Plan. The Proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state Habitat Conservation Plan since there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan in the Project area or local region. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
RCA Associates, Inc. Protected Plant Preservation Plan. November 2, 2018.

RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment. June 22, 2020.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 24 ends

V. 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 in
§15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

Environmental Setting
A Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report (Cultural Report) , dated August 10, 2016, was completed by CRM Tech and an u pdated report was prepared July 2, 2020 to reexamine findings and conclusions from the original report. This included a n updated records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a request to the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a se arch of their Sacred Lands File (SLF). CRM Tech also conducted an intensive on-foot survey of the project area in 2020. The Project Site is vacant with no evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period found during the field survey.

Discussion
a-b. According to SCCIC records in the 2020 Cultural Report, a linear survey performed in 1978 crossed the southern portion of the project area in an east -west direction, but the project area as a whole had not been surveyed systematically prior to the Cultural Report, and no historical/archaeological sites had been recorded on or adjacent to the Project Site. Outside the project area, within a one -mile radius, SCCIC records show at least 18 other previous studies covering various tracts of land and linear features, including an adjacent linear survey along Nisqualli Road. As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, nine historical/archaeological sites have been recorded within the one -mile radius. All but two of these sites dated to the historic period, and the nearest prehistoric site, described as a small camp site with scattered lithic artifacts, was recorded 0.7 mile to the east. Two of the historic -period sites were located within 1,000 feet of the project area, consisting of a late 19th century wagon road known as the Oro Grande Wash Road and a group of structural remains. None of these previously recorded sites was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration.

The Project Site is vacant with no evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period found during the field survey performed by CRM Tech . However, there always exists a potential to encounter previously unreported subsurface historical and archaeological resources during future construction activities. Mitigation Measure s CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential ly significant impacts on archaeological and historical resources, including human remains to less than significant.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 25 ends

Mitigation Measure CUL -1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered areas may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the SMBM I Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the f ind, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologi st shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR -1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

c. The Cultural Report concluded that no human remains were encountered during either survey. However, there is always a potential to encounter human remains during earth moving activities. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts on human remains to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL -3: If, at any time, human remains or suspected human remains are identified within the Project Site, the Contractor will halt work in the immediate vicinity of the find and establish a buffer zone around the find. If the archaeological consultant is on -site, the archaeological consultant will oversee the level of protection. The City will be immediately notified and the City will contact the County Coroner (within 24 hours). The Coroner has the authority to examine the find in situ and make a determination as to the nature of the find:

a) If the remains are determined to be human, the Coroner will determine whether or not they are likely of Native American origin. If so, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission and the Commission will name the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). In consultation between the City, Property Owne r, MLD, and consulting archaeologist, the disposition of the remains will be defined. If there is a conflict, the Native American Heritage Commission with act as a mediator.

b) If the remains are determined to be archaeological, but not of Native American origin, the City, Property Owner and archaeological consultant will determine the management of the find and the removal from the site. The Property Owner would be responsible for any costs related to the removal, analysis, and reburial.

c) If the remains are determined to be of forensic value, the Coroner will arrange for the removal of the remains and oversee the analysis and disposition.

References
CRM Tech. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report. August 10, 2016.

CRM Tech. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report. July 2, 2020.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 26 ends

VI. 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
Building Energy Conservation Standards

The California Energy Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission) adopted Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations; energy Conservation Standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings in June 1977 and standards are updated every three years. Title 24 ensures building designs conserve energy. The requirements al low for the opportunities to incorporate updates of new energy efficiency technologies and methods into new developments. In June 2015, the California Energy Commission (CEC) updated the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Under the 2016 Standards, residential buildings are approximately 28 percent more energy efficient than the previous 2013 Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings.

The CEC updated the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in May 2018. The 2019 Title 24 standards state that residential buildings are anticipated to be approximately 7 percent more energy efficient. When the required roof top solar is factored in for low -rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet the 2019 Title 24 standards would use approximately 53 percent less energy than residential units built to meet the 2016 standards. Additionally, the 2022 Build ing Energy Efficiency Standards will improve upon the 2019 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to residential buildings.

Senate Bill 350

Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in October 2015. SB 350 establishes new clean energy, clean air and greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030. SB 350 also establishes tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard: 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.

Senate Bill 100

Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) was signed into law September 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards. SB 100 requires the total kilowatt-hours of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also includes a State policy that Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 27 ends

eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end -use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Discussion
a.

Electricity

Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project Site. Currently, the existing Project Site is vacant and does not use electricity. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would cause a permanent increase in demand for electricity when compared to existing conditions. The increased demand is expected to be sufficiently served by the existing SCE electrical facilitie s. According to the California Energy Commission: Electricity Consumption by Planning Area, SCE residential use consumed 32,479.8 GWh in the year 2019. The CalEEMod model projected that the proposed apartment complex would consume 1.04 GWh annually. The increase in electricity demand from the project would represent 0.00 3 percent of the overall SCE residential consumption. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service.

The Proposed Project has been designed to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

The City would review and verify that the Proposed Project plans would be in compliance with the most current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Proposed Project would a lso be required to adhere to CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable developments, and energy efficiency. Adherence to these requirements would result in the Proposed Project being efficient in terms of energy consumption. The development of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to affect achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard established in in the current SB 100. SCE and other electricity retailer’s SB 100 goals include that end-user electricity use such as residential and commercial developments use would decrease from current emission estimates. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation and no mitigation measures are recommended.

Natural Gas

The Proposed Project and surrounding area are serviced by Southwest Gas Company. The Project Site is currently vacant and has no demand on natural gas. Therefore, the develo pment of the Proposed Project will create a permanent increase in the demand for natural gas. According to the California Energy Commission: Gas Consumption by County, San Bernardino County (which includes Southwest Gas and other providers in the County), residential use consumed 275,034,031 Therms in the year 2019 within San Bernardino County . The CalEEMod model projected that the proposed apartment complex would consume 32,765.67 Therms annually. The increase in natural gas demand from the project would represent

0.0012 percent of the San Bernardino County residential consumption. Therefore, the natural gas demand from the Proposed Project would represent an insignificant percentage of the overall demand in Southwest Gas Company service area. Title 24 is a collection of energy standards that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) homes; the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will improve upon the 2019 Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 28 ends

Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The Proposed Project would be built in accordance with the 2022 energy standards of Title 24; therefore, no significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. The Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No significant adverse i mpacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation is recommended.

b. The Proposed Project is designed to adhere to Victorville’s Climate Action Plan and Resource Element:

Energy Conservation of the City General Plan to support decrease energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce GHG emissions, AB 32, and SB 32; therefore, the Project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by to 2020. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
California Energy Commission. California Energy Consumption Database. Accessed 6/8/21 from https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 29 ends

VII. Geology and Soils
Would the project:

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 wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a un ique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 30 ends

Existing Environmental Setting
According to the City of Victorville General Plan, the City is located in an area of high seismic activity.

The probability of a major earthquake from the San Andreas, Helendale, and San Jacinto Faults i s considered to be high.

There are no faults or fault traces that are known or suspected to exist within the City of Victorville. No Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are located within the City. Therefore, the project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone since there is no evidence of a “potentially active fault” located in the area.

The City’s Housing Element requires all new development to employ design and construction techniques that will reduce the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage in the event of a major earthquake (City of Victorville 2008) . Geotechnical recommendations were provided in a n updated Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated April 3, 2018 by GEO-CAL, Inc. prepared for the adjacent property to the south. Reference to findings in the report are provided herein.

Discussion
a(i). The Project Site is not located within a currently delineated CGS Special Studies Zone (formerly known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone and there are no known faults on -site6. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered negligible since active faults are not known to cross the Project Site. However, secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the majors on major faults in th e Southern California region, which may affect the Project Site, include soil liquefaction, dynamic settlement, shallow ground rupture, seiches and tsunamis. The nearest fault to the Project Site is the San Andreas fault, which is identified as an Alquist -Priolo fault and is located approximately 15 miles to the southwest of the Project Site. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

a(ii). As is the case for most areas of Southern California, ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with nearby and more distant faults may occur at the Project Site. During the life of the Proposed Project, seismic activity associated with the active faults can be expected to generate moderate to strong ground shaking at the Project Site. As a mandatory condition of project approval, the Proposed Project would be required to construct proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) which is established by the California Building Standards Code. The code is also known as Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. With mandatory compliance with standard design and construction measures, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant and the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

a(iii, iv). The San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlay Map (Victorville/San Bernardino #EHFH C) that covers the site and vicinity does not delineate any areas susceptible to liquefaction on the site or vicinity. Groundwater depths in the vicinity (well located at the SW corner of Nisqualli Rd. and Balsam Rd. and .34 miles SW of the site) are approximately 300 below the ground surface.

6 Geotechnical Engineering Report, GEO-CAL, INC, April 3, 2018, Page 5 Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 31 ends

(https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/). Generally, liquefaction does not occur where groundwater is deeper than 50 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is remote.

According to the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, Policy Map HZ -2 Liquefaction & Landslides, the Project Site is not located in or near an area known to be susceptible to liquefaction or landslides.7 Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

b. During the development of the Project Site, which would include disturbance of 11 .4 acres, project- related dust may be generated due to the operation of machinery on-site or due to high winds. Additionally, erosion of soils could occur due to a storm event. Development of the Proposed Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; therefore, the Proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009 -2009-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize soil erosion. Adherence to BMPs is anticipated to ensure that the Proposed Project does not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

c. Soils on the Project Site are identified as Cajon Sand and Bryman Loamy fine sand, as shown the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service We Soil Survey Map .8 The geologic map that co vers this area is the USGS map titled: Geologic map of the 15 -minute Hesperia quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, by T.W. Dibblee, USGS Open File Report OF -65-43, 1965. The map scale is 1:62,500. Based on the map the geologic units on the site are Alluvium (Qa) and Older Alluvium (Qoa). The Qa appears to coincide with the Cajon sand, and the Qoa coincides with the Bryman loamy fine sand. There are no landslides mapped on or adjacent to the site, plus the site is relatively flat with slopes no greater than 2%. Also, the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlay Map (Victorville/San Bernardino #EHFH C) that covers the site and vicinity does not delineate any areas with landslide susceptibility.

The Proposed Project would not be located on 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, as mentioned above. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the Victorville Municipal Code and the latest adopted version of the California Building Code to ensure potential impacts related to soil erosion, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be less-than-significant. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. Expansive soils are composed of fine -grained silts and clays which are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of swelling and contracting is subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. Soils on the

7 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101b34b1905. Accessed 5/18/21. 8 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed 5/18/21.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 32 ends

Project Site are identified as Cajon Sand and Bryman Loamy f ine sand , as shown the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service We Soil Survey Map.9 Both soils are considered well-draining to somewhat excessively drained and contain no clay materials. Additionally, the 2021 Geotechnical Engineering Report found that materials encountered at the adjacent in property were considered to be non -expansive. Thus, on-site soils are non-expansive in nature. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

e. The project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The Proposed Project would be required to connect to the City’s public sewer system during the construction phase of development and prior to operations. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

f. Soils on the Project Site consi sts of Cajon Sand and Bryman Loamy fine sand , as mentioned above .

Both soils are considered to be Quaternary in age and the possibility of fossil remains is not highly likely.

Paleontologic resources within 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.10 All of the City of Victorville, excepting those areas above the 2,985 foot contour or below the 2,727 foot contour, is located upon fossil bearing strata. The entire City of Victorville is considered to be sensitive regarding paleontological resources due to the exis tence of recovery sites throughout. The Project Site occurs on an elevation between 3,051 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and 3,034 feet amsl , making impacts associated to paleontological resources less than significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Should older Quaternary Alluvial deposits be encountered during site preparation activities, a qualified paleon tologist shall oversee the excavations to ensure that any paleontological specimens are identified, recovered, analyzed, reported, and curated in accordance with CEQA and the County of Riverside policies and guidelines. This program should be conducted while these older deposits are impacted and while the paleontological consultant deems the program necessary.

References
ARC GIS On-Line. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer. Accessed 5/18/21.

ARCGIS.com.https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5864a434814c4e53adc74101 b34b1905. Accessed 5/18/21.

City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

Geotechnical Engineering Report at Proposed Service Station, Supermarket, Food Retail and Carwash North Side of Nisqualli Rd East of Balsam Ave Victorville, California. GEO-CAL, Inc. April 3, 2018.

10 City of Victorville General Plan. Page R-17.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 33 ends

San Bernardino Countywide Plan. Policy Map HZ-2 Liquefaction & Landslides. 2019.

United States Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Accessed 5/18/21.

(https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 34 ends

VIII. 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 signific ant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Existing 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 impl icated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHG are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor.

While the presence of the primary GHG in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO 2, CH4, and N2O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off -gassing associated with agr icultural practices and landfills. Other GHG include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound -for-pound basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHG than CO2, with GWP of 25 and 310 times that of CO2, respectively.

Discussion
a-b. According to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, when making a determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions, the “lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to (1) use a model or methodolog y to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use.” Moreover, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides that “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts” on the condition that “the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” The Project Site occurs within the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). Additionally, the City of Victorville adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in May 2016. The CAP presents the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, identifies the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce the GHG emissions, and identifies local measur es that were selected by the City to reduce GHG emissions under the City’s Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 35 ends

jurisdictional control to achieve the City’s identified GHG reduction target. The MDAQMD threshold of 100,000 MTCO2e per year was used as a threshold of significance in the Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated December 31, 2020, completed by Ganddini Group, Inc., for the Proposed Project.

Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. The modeled emissions anticipated from the Proposed Project during both construction and operational phases, are compared to the MDAQMD threshold and shown below in Table 4. The City’s CAP ensures that development of new residential and commercial buildings include high energy -efficiency standards such as use of renewable energy source and management of facilities to reduce emissions due to the use of electricity and natural gas.

Table 4
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Area 313.41 0.2 0.0 323.66
Energy 506.29 0.0 0.0 508.51
Mobile 1,537.24 0.0 0.0 1,539.33
Waste 24.79 1.5 0.0 61.42
Water 94.21 0.46 0.0 109.22
Construction1 43.12 0.0 0.0 43.26
Subtotal Emissions 2,519.06 2.24 0.03 2,542.14
Total Emissions 5,063.47
MDAQMD GHG Emissions
Threshold 100,000
Significant No
Source: Ganddini Group, Inc. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis. December 31, 2020. Table 9.

1.Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate.

As shown on Table 4, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project are not anticipated to exceed the MDAQMD’s GHG emissions threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment. The CAP includes a building energy goal of 29 percent emission reduction for 2020 and has met the goal by reduction of the projected 2020 emissions from 607,252 MTCO2e to 422,592 MTCO2e. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would account for less than one percent of the total 422,592 MTCO2e. The Proposed Project would not conflict with and the City’s CAP, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gase s. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

References
Ganddini Group, Inc. Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis. December 31, 2020.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 36 ends

IX. 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,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Existing Environmental Setting
As defined in Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code, a hazardous material is any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health or the env ironment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous substances can take the form of a solid, dust, liquid, or fume and exhibit any of the criteria set forth in 22 CCR, Chapter 30, Article 11. A list of wastes that are presumed hazardous i s Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 37 ends

presented in Chapter 30, Article 9 of Title 22. Hazardous waste criteria include toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, and corrosivity.

The City of Victorville’s General Plan Safety Element is intended to identify and, whenever possible, reduce the impact of natural and manmade hazards which may threaten the health, safety, and property of the residents living and working in the City of Victorville.

The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List website, maintained by the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) indicates that there are no listed sites in the City.11 Discussion
a-b. During construction of the Proposed Project, the use of hazardous substances would be l imited in nature and subject to standard handling and storage of equipment. Although highly unlikely, the release of hazardous materials could occur during construction on any project. Any such releases would most likely be minor spillages of motor vehicle fuels and oils. The Proposed Project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (see Hydrology and Water Quality Section ), which would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to avoid spills, immediately respond to any spills, and minimize the effects of such spills. The use and handling of chemicals during construction activities would occur in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) requirements.

During construction, it is highly unlikely that the release of hazardous materials at a level that would present a hazard to the environment or to human or animal life would occur. The Proposed Project would not use or store hazardous materials. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c. The storage and use of hazardous materials are not associated with multi -family residential developments. The nearest school is Mojave Vista Elementary School located approximately one mile to the southeast. Therefore, no impacts associated with emission of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 -mile of a school are anticipated. No significant adverse impacts or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The Project Site was not found on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor data management system, accessed May 18, 2021 . No hazardous materials sites are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anti cipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

e. Southern California Logistics Airport Planning Area (SCLA) includes the former George Air Force Base and an area north to the existing City boundary, and east towards the Mojave River and along the north side of Air Expressway of the former base.12 The SCLA Planning Area is approximately 6 miles to the northwest of the Project Site. Therefore, t he Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area. No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

11 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?assembly=42. Accessed 5/18/21. 12 City of Victorville General Plan. Page LU-26.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 38 ends

f. The Proposed Project would not impair or interfere with any future emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Proposed Project would include an emergency entrance/exit on the east side of the property for use in emergency situations. The circulation associated with the Proposed Project’s emergency entrance/exit would not affect surrounding land uses. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

g. The City of Victorville’s General Plan states that prior to approval of a development project or issuance of a building permit, the City of Victorville Water District verifies that the peak load water supply requirement is not negatively affected. “Peak load water supply” refers to the sum total of the City’s water supply required for fire flow, operational daily consumptio n, and emergency storage. 13 The City of Victorville has adopted a Fire Hazard Abatement Ordinance (Chapter 8.09, Victorville Municipal Code) which requires the abatement of weeds in excess of three inches above the grade in the area of growth on such portion of the lot or premises within one hundred feet of any structure. Russian Thistle (tumbleweeds) are not permitted to grow in excess of three inches within City limits on any property, regardless of surrounding improvements. Adherence to this ordinance reduces the likelihood of fire s on undeveloped lands and on vacant lots in the developed portions of the City of Victorville.

There are measures in the California Building Code (CBC) which reduce fire hazards in structures. Some of these measures include use of materials, fire separa tion walls, building separation, and fire sprinklers.

Fire sprinklers are currently required in all structures two (2) stories or more in height, 5,000 square feet or greater in size, and in facilities that are hazardous occupancies as defined in the Calif ornia Fire and Building Codes. Developmental regulations include requirements for minimum road widths which provide adequate access for fire fighting equipment, evacuation of residents, and clearance around structures to prevent the rapid spread of fire.

The City does not have a designated fire hazard map. The CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer shows that the Project Site is not within a fire hazard severity zone. The Proposed Project would comply with the City’s a Fire Hazard Abatement Ordinance and the CBC to reduce impacts on people or structures to exposure of wildland fire hazards. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), DTSC’s Envirostor Database, Accessed May 8th, 2021 at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?assembly=42.

City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

CALFIRE, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, Accessed May 25, 2021 at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

13 City of Victorville General Plan. Page S-12.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 39 ends

X. 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 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 p rovide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

Environmental Setting
The Project Site is bounded on the south, west, and east by residential development and a church to the west. To the north is vacant land. The existing site has two drainage areas that sheet flow to the northeast corner of the site. One infiltration basin has been implemented into the Project Site in order to convey and treat all runoff produced by the Proposed Project. Overflow from the BMP would discharge to Winona Street.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 40 ends

Stormwater runoff from disturbed soils associated with construction activities is a common source of pollutants (mainly sediment) to r eceiving waters. Earthwork activities can loosen soils and sediments making them more susceptible to erosion from stormwater runoff and increas e the likelihood that these materials would migrate in stormwater runoff to storm drains and downstream water bod ies. In addition, construction would likely involve the use of various materials typically associated with construction activities such as paint, solvents, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, concrete and associated concrete wash-out areas. If improper ly handled, these materials could result in pollutants being mobilized and transported offsite by stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution) and degrade receiving water quality.

Discussion
a. The Proposed Project would disturb more than one acre and therefore would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State’s General Construction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activities that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater associated with construction activities; and 2) id entify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed Project, dated July 27, 2021 has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Victorville. The WQMP was prepared to meet NPDES Area Wide Stormwater Program requirements.

Mandatory compliance with the Proposed Project’s WQMP as approved by the City, in addition to compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, would ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

b. The Project Site is located within the service area of Victorville Water District (VWD). As stated in the 2015 Victorville Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), VWD’s service area is located in the southwest region of San Bernardino County and encompasses approximately 85 square mil es.

Throughout the planning period, VWD’s population is anticipated to grow at about 1.6 to 2.3 percent annually, reaching over 200,000 by 2040. VWD's potable water system supplies water solely from groundwater, pumped from the Mojave River Basin (Basin).

According to the UWMP, during a multiple dry-year period, VWD’s total water supply is projected to be 37,858 acre-feet (AF) by 2040, while the total water demand is projected to be 37,858 AF in the same year, resulting in neither surplus or deficit. As provided by Table 4 -4: Selected Water Demand Factors, 2018 Water Master Plan Update, the residential land use category water demand is approximately 1,500 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acres). The Proposed Project, which consist of an approximate 11-acre residential development is therefore anticipated to result in a total water demand of approximately

19.14 AF per year on average. This would amount to approximately 0.051, or less than one percent of the anticipated multiple dry year water supply in 2040. Therefore, VWD’s supplies are sufficient to meet Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 41 ends

demand within the district’s service area. The Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede substantial groundwater management of the basin. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

c(i). Project site development would not involve the alteration of a stream or river and would not substantially alter on-site drainage patterns. There are no existing streams or rivers that traverse the Project Site. Stormwater runoff volumes would be directed into the infiltration basin and overflow would drain to Winona Street, into the existing stor mwater drainage system. Once conveyed off-site and into the urban stormwater drainage system, the potential for erosion is minimal. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c(ii-iv). The proposed improvements onsite are not located within a flood hazard risk area associated with a 100-year flood and would not result in substantially altered on -site surface water drainage patterns .

According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project Site is located on Map 06071C6480H in Zone X, which is defined as areas of minimal flood hazards.14 Implementing the Proposed Project would result in minimal increases in stormwater runoff flowing into proposed on-site infiltration basin and then into the City stormwater drainage system along Winona Street. The impervious surface area associated with the proposed storage area would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff to the extent that the project increases flood risk on-site or off-site. The Proposed Project would require approval of a City -approved hydrology study and WQMP and implementation of a City-approved drainage plan designed with sufficient capacity to retain stormwater on -site such that post -project peak stor mwater runoff matches pre -project conditions. The Proposed Project would also include any required improvements in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The Project Site is not located within a tsunami hazard inundation zone and is not in an area subject to current or projected future coastal flooding. A seiche is caused by oscillation of the surface of a large enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water due to an earthquake or large wind event. The Project Site is not located near a large enclosed or semi -enclosed body of water. As shown on Figure S -2 Flood Hazards Map of the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is not located in an area associated with flood hazards .

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

e. As discussed above, no water quality degradation or groundwater impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would comply with the requirements under the NPDES Permit program, the City-approved WQMP, and the implementation of associated BMPs and other requirements of SWPPP as well as a City-approved drainage plan which will ensure stormwater discharges associated with construction and use of the project comply with regulatory requiremen ts in the City . The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

14 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=grand%20terrace%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor. Accessed 5/28/21.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 42 ends

References
City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06071C6480H. August, 28, 2008.

W&W Land Design Consultants. WQMP Management Plan. July 27, 2021.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 43 ends

XI. 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?

Discussion
a-b. The Project Site is currently zoned as Multi-Family Residential (R-4) and General Commercial (C-2).

The Proposed Project is a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) to convert one of the parcels from C -2 to R -4 to allow for development of the Propos ed Project on all three parcels.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community since the Project Site is vacant. Upon approval of the ZC and GPA, the Proposed Project would be in conformance with the City’s Gen eral Plan and would not 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. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identi fied or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 44 ends

XII. 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?

Discussion
a-b. The Project Site is not located within a mineral resource zone (MRZ) and would not 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 or locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan , as shown on Figure RE -1 of the City’s General Plan. 15 No impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

15 City of Victorville General Plan. Figure RE-1.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 45 ends

XIII. 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 vicinit y of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

Existing Environmental Setting
Noise Descriptors

Noise can be measured in the form of a decibel (dB), which is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound.

The predominant rating scales for noise in the State of California are the Equivalent -Continuous Sound Level (Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which are both based on the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Leq is defined as the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. CNEL is defined as the time -varying noise over a 24 -hour period, with a weighting factor of 5 dBA applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA applied to events occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. defined as sleeping hours). The State of California’s Office of Noise Co ntrol has established standards and guidelines for acceptable community noise levels based on the CNEL and Ldn rating scales.

Noise Standards

The City of Victorville General Plan Noise Element aims to limit exposure of the community to excessive noise levels and provides a systematic approach to ensure that noise does not affect the health and serenity of Victorville residents and minimize excessive, objectionable or harmful noise impacting existing and future residents and land uses. The City has established noise sensitivity standards for new development with the goal of reducing undesirable noise impacts. The applicable type of land use category that applies to the Proposed Project is Residential land use. Under this classification, a maximum outdoor noise level up to 60 dB Ldn is considered normally acceptable and a maximum outdoor noise level of 65+ dB Ldn is considered conditionally acceptable.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 46 ends

Discussion
a. A Noise Impact Analysis, dated January 7, 2021, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc., to assess impacts from project-generated noise. The City of Victorville General Plan and Municipal Code do not identify specific construction noise level thresholds. As the City of Victorville has not adopted a numerical threshold that identifies what a substantial increase would be, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria is used to establish significance thresholds. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq averaged over an 8-hour period (Leq (8-hr); and the nighttime noise threshold is 70 dBA Leq (8-hr). For commercial uses, the daytime and nighttime noise threshold is 85 dBA Leq (8-hr).

Modeled unmitigated construction noise levels when combined with existing measured noise levels reached up to 73.9 dBA Leq at the nearest residential property line to the east, 63.7 dBA Leq at the nearest residential property line to the northeast, 75.3 dBA Leq at the nearest residential property line to the south,

75.2 dBA Leq at the nearest commercial property line to the southwest, and 72.2 dBA Leq at the nearest school property line to the west of the Project Site.

Construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s daytime residential or commercial construction noise thresholds and would be restricted to daytime hours (7: 00 AM to 10:00 PM). Operational noise impacts would be associated with the additional trips generated on adjacent roadway segments. Per the noise modeling, all of the modeled roadway segments are anticipated to change the noise a nominal amount (approximately 0.02 to 4.26 dBA CNEL). Therefore, a change in noise level would not be audible and would be considered less than significant. Interior noise levels at the proposed units may reach up to 45 dB CNEL and would not exceed the State’s interior noise standard for residential units of 55 dBA Leq.

This impact would be less than significant . No significant adverse impacts are identified o r anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

NOISE IMPACTS TO OFF-SITE RECEPTORS DUE TO PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS

During operation, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,153 average daily trips with 76 trips during the AM peak-hour and 93 trips during the PM peak -hour. A worst -case project generated traffic noise level was modeled utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA- RD-77-108. Traffic noise levels were calculated at the right of way from the centerline of the analyzed roadway. The modeling is theoretical and does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Therefore, the levels are shown for comparative purposes only to show the difference in with and without project conditions. Roadway input parameters including average daily traffic volumes (ADTs), speeds, and vehicle distribution data is shown in Table 6. The potential off -site noise impacts caused by an increase of traffi c from operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways were calculated for the following scenarios:

Existing Year (without Project) : This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions and is demonstrated in Table 7

Existing Year (With Project): This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions and is demonstrated in Table 7.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 47 ends

As shown in Table 7, modeled Existing traffic noise levels range between 55-79 dBA CNEL at the right- of- way of each modeled roadway segment; and the modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 56-79 dBA CNEL at the right-of-way of each modeled roadway segment.

As stated previously, for purposes of this project, increases in ambient noise along affected roadways due to project generated vehicle traffic is considered substantial if they result in an increase of at least 5 dBA CNEL and: (1) the existing noise levels already exceed the applicable land use compatibility standard for the affected sensitive receptors set forth in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan; or (2) the project increases noise levels by at least 3 dBA CNEL and raises the ambient noise level from below the applicable standard to above the applicable standard.

All modeled roadway segments are anticipated to change the noise a nominal amount (between approximately 0.02 to 4.3 dBA CNEL). Noise increases in ambient noise along affected roadways due to project generated vehicle traffic are considered substantial if they result in an increase of at least 5 dBA CNEL and: (1) the existing noise levels already exceed the applicable land use compatibility standard for the affected sensitiv e receptors set forth in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan; or (2) if the project increases noise levels by at least 3 dBA CNEL and raises the ambient noise level from below the applicable standard to above the applicable standard. Project

One road segment (Balsam Avenue, north of Nisqually Road would be exposed to a 4.3 dB increase in ambient noise levels. Thee affected land use is a parking lot associated with a church. The church is situated near Nisqualli Road. Existing modeled noise levels at this location are 56.61 dBA CNEL. Existing Plus project modeled noise levels at this location are 60.87. Noise levels of up to 65 are considered to be “normally acceptable” per the City’s Land Use Compatibility Standards presented in Table 2. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

b. Construction equipment is anticipated to be located at a distance of at least 45 feet or more from any receptor. Temporary vibration levels could be considered annoying to the receptors to the east. Annoyance is expected to be short -term, occurring only during grading and site preparation. Temporary vibration levels associated with project construction would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c. The Southern California Logistics Airport Planning Area (SCLA) Planning Area is approximately 6 miles to the northwest of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
Ganddini Group, Inc. Balsam at Winona Apartments Project Noise Impact Analysis. January 7, 2021.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 48 ends

XIV. 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?

Discussion
a-b. State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their share of regional housing needs. As part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Southern California Association of G overnments (SCAG) determines the housing growth needs by income category for cities within its jurisdiction, which includes the City of Victorville. Every eight years, the State of California provides the number of housing units that should be accommodated in each region within the State. To comply with State law, the City’s Housing Element must be updated to ensure the City’s policies and programs can accommodate its share of the estimated housing growth identified by the State. For the current Housing Element update, the City’s share of the RHNA is 8,146 for 2013 to 2021, split among different income levels (based on Area Median Income, or AMI) as shown in the Table 5, below.

Table 5
Units Required by Income
Income Category Number of
Units
% of Total
Units
Very Low Income (0-50% of AMI) 1,731 21%
Low Income (50-80% of AMI) 1,134 14%
Moderate Income (80-120% of AMI) 1,500 18%
Above Moderate Income (More than 120% of AMI) 3,781 46% Total Units 8,146 100%

Through the RHNA process, the City must show that it has the regulatory and land use policies to accommodate housing needs. As shown on Table 5, the City of Victorville is in compliance with housing needs. The Proposed Project is anticipated generate approximately 780 people based on the average family household size provided by the City’s General Plan of 3. 68 persons per household. 16 Implementation of the Proposed Project would provide 212 residential units to the City of Victorville, thus assisting the City in satisfying the housing needs for t he anticipated population growth of the City. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

16 City of Victorville General Plan. Page H-11.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 49 ends

XV. Public Services
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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Fire protection?

2. Police protection?

3. Schools?

4. Parks?

5. Other public facilities?

Discussion
a(1). Fire Protection within the City of Victorville is provided by the City of Victorville Fire Department.

The Victorville Fire Department actively operates out of four Fire Stations. The nearest fire station to the Project Site is located at 14343 Civic Drive , approximately 1.7 miles north of the Project Site. The Proposed Project is in an urbanized area that occurs within the existing fire service area and would accommodate approximately 780 residents based on the average family household size provided by the City’s General Plan of 3.68 persons per household. This increase of population in the project area has been anticipated by the General Plan and therefore, the Proposed Project would be expected to receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

a(2). Police service in the City of Victorville is provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Victorville Sheriff’s Dep artment is located at 14200 Amargosa Road , approximately

1.5 miles north of the Project Site. More than 150 people work at the Victorville Police Department, many of which are reserve deputies, civilian employees and volunteers. The City has a ratio of 0. 84 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. 17 Police services are funded through the City’s General Fund. Police Department requests for more officers are based on service needs; officers have been added annually for the last decade based on professional judgment to meet demands. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to law enforcement are identified or anticipated, no mitigation measures are required.

a(3). The Project Site is loc ated within the boundary of the Victor Elementary School (VESD) and the Victor Valley Union High School Districts (VVUHSD). The VESD Quadrant Map identifies schools that

17 City of Victorville General Plan. Page S-22.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 50 ends

would provide educational services to the project area including Galileo School of Gif ted and Talented Education (GATE) (15999 Warwick St.), Mojave Vista School of Cultural Arts (16100 Burwood Ave.), Lomitas Community of Learners (Independent Studies) (12571 1st Ave.), Endeavour School of Exploration (12403 Ridgecrest Road) and Mountain Vie w Montessori (17000 Silica Road). The VVUHSD Boundaries Map shows that Goodwill High School (12350 Mojave Drive), Victor Valley High School (16500 Mojave Drive) and Lakeview Leadership Academy (1284 Tamarisk Road) provide educational series to the project area. Using the Student Generation Rates (SGR) provided by the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 30.4 students. 18 The Proposed Project would result in a 0.0021 percent increase in students enrolled in the school district. With the collection of development impact fees, impacts related to school facilities are expected to be less than significant .

Therefore, no signif icant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

a(4). The City of Victorville provides approximately 2.5 acres per 1,000 people or 402 people per acre of “park” which does not include other private (i.e. Home-Owners Association provided) parks and schools.

Based on projected population growth, the City should consider adding 15 acres over the next five years to meet the current ratio. 19 The Project Site is with the Multi -Family Residential (R -4) and General Commercial (C-2) Zoning districts. The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to convert the parcel within the C-2 zone to the R-4 zone to make the Proposed Project a permitted use. Approval of the GPA and ZC would therefore make the Proposed Project consistent with the City’s General Plan and would be accounted for in the City’s anticipated population growth. Developer Impact Fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance and reduces impacts to parks to a les s than significant level. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

a(5). The Proposed Project ’s anticipated number of residents (780 people based on the average family household size provided by the City’s General Plan of 3.68 persons per household) would increase demand for other public facilities/services, such as libraries, community recreation centers, and/or animal shelters.

The Project Proponent would be required to pay the applicable development impact fees, property tax, and utility user tax. As su ch, implementation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect other public facilities or require the construction of new or modified facilities. No impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

References
City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

City of Victorville Parks and Recreation Master Plan. December 2020.

Cooperative Strategies. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study. April 21, 2020.

18 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study. Table 4/Page 13. 19 City of Victorville Parks and Recreation Master Plan. December 2020.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 51 ends

XVI. Recreation
Would the project:

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?

Discussion
a-b. According to the General Plan EIR, outdoor recreation resources in the City are identified as public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. As of 2008 the City maintains 409.9 acres of parkland, which includes 23 parks and golf courses. The City strives to comply with the 1975 Quimby Act for parks requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The City strives to maintain a rati o of three acres of park land per 1,000 population. The Proposed Project is anticipated to house approximately 780 people based on the average family household size provided by the City’s General Plan of 3.68 persons per household which could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Proposed Project would therefore result in the ne ed for approximately 2.3 acres of parkland. The Proposed Project include approximately

9.77 acres of recreation/open space area for future residents which exceeds the three acres required to meet the City’s ratio. The Proposed Project included 102,030 square-feet (2.34 acres) of common Open Space.

Developer Impact Fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, with the collection of development impact fees and inclusion of open space areas proposed within the development, impacts to parks are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 52 ends

XVII. 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. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
NOTE: While public agencies may immediately apply
Section 15064.3 of the updated Guidelines, statewide
application is not required until July 1, 2020. In
addition, u niform statewide guidance for Caltrans
projects is still under development. The PDT may
determine the appropriate metric to use to analyze
traffic im pacts pursuant to section 15064.3(b).

Projects for which an NOP will be issued any time after December 28 th, 2018 should consider including an
analysis of VMT/induced demand if the project has the
potential to increase VMT (see page 20 of OPR’s
updated SB 743 Technical Advisory), particularly if the project will be approved after July 2020.

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geom etric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Existing Environmental Setting
A Traffic Impact Analysis, dated December 15, 2020, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc. to assess potential transportation impacts resulting from development of the Proposed Project both in the context of CEQA and City of Victorville discretionary author ity. Regional access to the Project Site is provided by the I-15 Freeway located approximately 1,000 feet west of the property. Key roadways providing local circulation include Amargosa Road, Mariposa Road, Balsam Avenue, 11th Avenue, Winona Street, La Mesa Road, and Nisqualli Road. There are currently no existing bike routes near the Project Site but Nisqualli Road west of Balsam Avenue, Balsam Avenue from Winona Street to Nisqualli Road (adjacent to the Project Site), and Winona Street east of Balsam Avenue (adjacent to the Project Site) are Proposed Shared Routes

The City of Victorville’s Resolution No. 20-031 was approved and adopted on June 23, 2020 establishing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines. According to the City’s Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 53 ends

adopted VMT 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. Discussion a. A Traffic Impact Analysis, dated December 15, 2020, was completed by Ganddini Group, Inc. (Ganddini) to assess potential transportation impacts resulting from development of the Proposed Project both in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Victorville discretionary authority. Regional access to the Project Site is provided by the I -15 Freeway located approximately 1,000 feet west of the property. Key roadways providing local circulation include Amargosa Road, Mariposa Road, Balsam Avenue, 11th Avenue, Winona Street, La Mesa Road, and Nisqualli Road. There are currently no existing bike routes near the Project Site but Nisqualli Road west of Balsam Avenue, Balsam Avenue from Winona Street to Nisqualli Road (adjacent to the Project Site), and Winona Street east of Balsam Avenue (adjacent to the Project Site) are Proposed Shared Routes, as shown on Figure CIRC -6 Non-Motorized Transportation P lan on the City’s General Plan .20 Pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks ) are provided on the west side of Balsam Avenue adjacent to the Project Site.

Project construction and operation would not conflict with any program, plan, or policy addressing the circulation system in the City. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

b. The Proposed Project is forecast to generate 1,153 daily trips, including 76 trips during the AM peak hour and 76 trips during the PM peak hour. Since the net project trip generation forecast is less than 1,285 daily weekday trips, the Proposed Project satisfies the daily vehicle trip threshold screening criteria established by the City of Victorville and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Thus, a detailed VMT analysis using a travel demand model or tool to quantify the VMT associated with the project is not required. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c. The Proposed Project would not involve any new hazardous design or features nor introduce any new uses that would be incompatible with transportation. The Proposed Project would not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d. The Project would not affect emergency response routes. The Project would include an emergency entrance/exit on the southern boundary of the Project Site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

References
City of Victorville General Plan 2030. 2008.

Ganddini Group, Inc. Balsam at Winona Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis. December 15, 2020.

20 City of Victorville General Plan 2030. Figure CIRC-6/Page C-24.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 54 ends

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code § 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 § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Existing Environmental Setting
The City of Victorville commenced the AB 52 process by sending out consultation invitation letters to tribes previously requesting notification pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) responded to the notification and requested the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared for the project and other project plans. After review of the Proposed Project, the SMBMI did not have concerns with the project’s implementation. The SMBMI did suggest Mitigation Measures for Tribal Cultural Resources that have been included as Mitigation Measures in this section.

Discussion
a(i-ii). As previously noted, no prehistoric or historic resources were identified from the archaeological investigation. As such, no historical resources that would require further consideration as defined under CEQA were identified within the project vicinity.

The Project Site is not listed in state or local registers as a historical resource. Mitigation measures are proposed to address historical and archaeological resources (possibly human remains) potentially discovered during construction. Implement ation of Mitigation Measure s CUL-1 through CUL-3 under Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 55 ends

environmental issue Cultural Resources and Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 below would reduce potentially significant impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TCR -1: The SMBMI Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information r egarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site.

Mitigation Measure TCR -2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and City of Victorville for dissemination to SMBMI. The City of Victorville and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

Balsam and Winona Victorville Apartments Project June 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Lilburn Corp

Page 56 ends

Victorville City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

Victorville City Council
March 15, 2022