Victorville City Council
May 17, 2022

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, May 17, 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: 852 8835 3217
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: 852 8835 3217
*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: Father Hyacinth Ibeh of St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church Pledge of Allegiance: Police Captain John Wickum
Proclamations/Special Presentations
Plaque Presented to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
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

APPEAL HEARING(S)

1. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision that required street improvements and the relocation of aboveground utilities to be installed underground along the southerly half of the project site’s roadway frontage in conjunction with the approval of Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 that allows for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services as well as the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels on a partially developed site located at 15975 Stoddard Wells Road Recommendation:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed appeal and take the following action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-043 - Affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to find the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA and to approve the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 as conditioned, which includes the requirements for the installation of street improvements and the relocation of aboveground utilities to be installed underground along the southerly half of the project site’s roadway frontage.

2. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Case No. PLAN21-00038 – A Conditional Use Permit to allow for C-1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) uses within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoned City Initiative Area to include a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit with an environmental exemption for the development of a fueling station and convenience store, a Conditional Use Permit for beer and wine sales for off-site consumption with a finding of public convenience or necessity and a Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two parcels, located at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road
Recommendation:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the appeal and take the following action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-044, upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case No. PLAN21-00038, based upon the same findings made by the Planning Commission at their April 13, 2022 meeting and the record as a whole.

PUBLIC HEARING(S)

3. Introduction of Ordinance No. 2428, amending Section 2.16.020 of Chapter 2.16 of the Victorville Municipal Code, for the purpose of adjusting the salaries of the members of the Victorville City Council
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Open and conduct the public hearing;
(2) Close the Public Hearing;
(3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2428 for adoption and first reading by title only; and (4) Waive further reading in full of proposed Ordinance No. 2428.

4. Award of Construction Contract – Septic to Sewer Conversion Project Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Open and conduct the Public Hearing;
(2) Close the Public Hearing;
(3) Approve the Notice of Exemption; and
(4) Award a construction contract to T.R. Stewart Corporation dba Roto Rooter in the amount of $24,089.00 for the Septic to Sewer Conversion project.

CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Notice of Completion - Sewer Crossing Protection 2020 – 16211 Figueroa Road Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council accept as complete and approve the Notice of Completion for Sewer Crossing Protection 2020 – 16211 Figueroa Road.

6. Victorville Water District Operating Results Report for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2022
Recommendation:

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

7. Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance for Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP) case number 13-09-01 (13035 Yale Circle, Victorville, CA 92392); as well as acceptance and reallocation of associated Program Income funds Recommendation:

That City Council take the following actions regarding MAP Case No. 13-09-01:
(1) Approve the Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance; (2) Authorize the execution of the Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance by the Deputy City Manager;
(3) Accept the payoff of the loan receivable to the CalHome Program Income Account; (4) Adopt Resolution No. 22-041, amending the annual budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 reallocating the subject $42,695 to CalHome Program Income Mortgage Assistance Program funds.

8. Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance for Residential Curb Appeal Program (RCAP) Case No. 17-10-25 (16633 Don St., Victorville, CA 92395); as well as acceptance and reallocation of associated Program Income funds Recommendation:

That City Council take the following actions regarding RCAP Case No. 17-10-25:
(1) Approve the Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance; (2) Confirm the required termination and release of the original Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs);
(3) Authorize the execution of the Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance as well as the termination and release of the original CC&Rs by the Deputy City Manager;
(4) Accept the payoff of the loan receivable to the Residential Rehabilitation Program Income Account;
(5) Adopt Resolution No. 22-042 amending the annual budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 and reallocating the subject $16,688 of Residential Curb Appeal Program funds to the Residential Rehabilitation Program Income Account.

9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2429
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt, by second reading, Ordinance No. 2429 amending various sections of Chapter 2.28 (Purchasing System) of the Victorville Municipal Code to increase the City Manager’s Purchasing and Contracting Authority, Revise Related Bidding Thresholds, and make Other Clarifying Changes.

10. Payroll Warrant List
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify the Payroll Demand Schedule No. 10A for Payroll Period March 18, 2022 through April 01, 2022, in the amount of $1,572,698.70 covering Check Nos. 32730 through Nos. 32746, including Vendor checks. Please note employee Check Nos. 32732 has a live Check and an EFT Advice. Also included are Advice Nos. 286878 through 287315, per adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

11. Commercial Demand Schedule No. 21
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify Commercial Demand Schedule No. 21 in the amount of $12,282,141.55, covering Electronic Fund Transfers No. 329875 through 330126 and Warrant No. 785466 through 785650 for 04/27/2022 through 05/04/2022 and Wire Transfers dated 04/26/2022 through 04/29/2022, per the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for the period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

12. General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports Recommendation:

Receive and file the 2021 General Plan Annual Progress Report and the 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR).

13. Used Oil Payment Program Grant Cycle OPP 12 Acceptance Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-040 to authorize acceptance of the Used Oil Payment Program Cycle 12 Grant and authorize the City Manager or his designee to process all documents required for program administration; and
(2) Ratify the associated expenditure plan.

14. CalRecycle City/County CRV Recycling Payment Program Grant Acceptance Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-039 to authorize acceptance of the CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling City/County Payment Program Grant and authorize the City Manager or his designee to process all documents required for program administration; and
(2) Ratify the associated expenditure plan.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

15. Resolution No. 22-047 of the City Council of the City of Victorville Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Victorville and the Victorville Professional Firefighters
Recommendation:

That your Honorable City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-047 thereby approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Victorville and the Victorville Professional Firefighters (VPF) and authorize the City Manager to execute said MOU.

16. Termination of an Interagency Loan Agreement and Cancellation of the Associated Consolidated Promissory Note
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council
(1) adopt Resolution No. 22-033 Authorizing the Use of General Fund monies to pay off the remaining balance due under the Consolidating Interfund Loan Agreement between the City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Fire Fund (“DIF Fire Fund”) and the City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Road Service Fund (“DIF Road Service Fund”) cancelling the Associated Consolidated Promissory Note and; (2) approve an additional appropriation in connection therewith

17. Termination of the Second Amended and Restated Loan Agreement related to an Existing Interagency Loan between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority (“SCLAA”) and the City of Victorville (“City”) and authorizing the transfer of properties funded with the Interagency Loan from the City to the SCLAA; and Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land in connection therewith
Recommendation:
(1) That the Honorable City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-035 (i) declaring City- owned properties as “Exempt Surplus Land” pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(D) and authorizing the disposition of such real property to the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, (ii) authorizing 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 (iii) upon such disposition, authorizing the termination of the Second Amended and Restated Loan Agreement by and between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and the City of Victorville and related Promissory Note; and
(2) That the Board of Directors of the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority adopt Resolution No. SCLAA-22-009 (i) authorizing the acquisition of certain real property within the City of Victorville to the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, and (ii) upon such acquisition, authorizing the termination of the Second Amended and Restated Loan Agreement by and between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and the City of Victorville and forgiving the related Promissory Note

18. Approval of Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement for Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects - Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $109,358.00 for completing design services including final plans, specifications, estimates, bidding and construction support, and any agency jurisdictional permitting for the Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects.

19. Award of contract to Automated Gate Services, Inc. for installation of four (4) automatic gates and concrete repair/replacement
Recommendation:

That Your Honorable City Council
(1) Approve the award of contract to Automated Gate Services, Inc. for the installation of four (4) automatic gates at Fire Stations 312, 313, 314, and 315 and concrete repairs at Fire Station 313 (Option #1) in the amount not to exceed $155,163.00 for project CC22-088.

20. Consideration of Resolution Nos. VWD 22-003 and VWD 22-004 - Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District Initiating Proceedings to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for Water Improvement District Number One and Number Two for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Recommendation:

That the Honorable Victorville Water District Board of Directors:
(1) Approve Resolution No. VWD 22-003 authorizing the Victorville Water District to initiate proceedings to fix, levy, and collect Standby Charges for Improvement District One for Fiscal Year 2022-2023;
(2) Approve Resolution No. VWD 22-004 authorizing the Victorville Water District to initiate proceedings to fix, levy, and collect Standby Charges for Improvement District Two for Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and
(3) Set June 7, 2022, as the date for the Public Hearing for the purpose of hearing arguments for and against determinations to fix, levy and collect water standby charges as set forth in the aforementioned resolutions.

21. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with IEC Corporation for Qualified Electrical Engineers, Project #CC20-066
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approves Amendment No. 2 to the Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement (Agreement) with IEC Corporation (IEC) for Qualified Electrical Engineers, Project #CC20-066, in the amount of $100,000 for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $200,000.

22. Purchase of New Dell Computers and Monitors
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council award the purchase in the amount not to exceed $302,903.73 to Dell Marketing, LP to acquire 163 new Dell computers, 45 new Dell monitors and 5 new monitor sound bars.

23. Purchase of New Software Licenses for Microsoft SQL Server Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council award the purchase in the amount not to exceed $41,508.80 to Dell Marketing, LP for sixteen Microsoft SQL Server 2-core licenses to support new database servers for the City’s enterprise resource planning software suite.

24. Purchase of New Dell Hosting Servers and Data Storage Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Award the purchase of eight new Dell VxRail server and storage machines with accompanying network equipment in the amount of $1,283,416.26 to The ReDesign Group; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-049 approving an additional appropriation in the amount of $835,000.00 to the General Fund Information Technology Infrastructure Equipment Expense Account.

25. Conduct of City Council Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Recommendation:

That the City Council make the following findings:
(1) A state of emergency, as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council members, City staff and consultants/presenters to meet safely in person; and (2) The State of California and the City of Victorville continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and/or County of San Bernardino, as applicable, including facial coverings when required and social distancing; and
(3) The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to these findings, City staff are authorized to utilize teleconferencing accessibility to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

26. Selection Committee's Appointment to the Measure P Oversight Committee Recommendation:

That Your Honorable City Council appoint the following to the Measure P Oversight Committee:
• Edwin Henderson, Resident Member of Non-Profit Social Services Provider • Jeremy Taylor, Resident Member of Youth/Recreation

27. Consideration of providing public comment to the State of California Fish and Game Commission at their June 15-16, 2022 public hearing in opposition of listing the Western Joshua Tree as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council authorize the Mayor to submit a letter to the State of California Fish and Game Commission in opposition of listing the Western Joshua Tree as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act

28. Letter of support for Assembly Bill 2836
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council authorize the Mayor to submit a letter to the Honorable Chris R. Holden, Chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, in support of AB 2836 to reauthorize the funding associated with the Carl Moyer Program and the Clean Air Incentives Program.

29. Consideration of proposed City Council Resolution No. 22-015 adopting revisions to the City of Victorville City Council Policy and Procedures Manual Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Review and Consider the Proposed Revised City Council Policy and Procedures Manual; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-015.

30. City Manager Reports

31. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Upcoming Agenda Items

32. Reports from Council Members
Adjournment
Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Appeal Hearing(s)
Meeting of: May 17, 2022
Submitted By:

Scott Webb, City Planner

Subject:

Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision that required street improvements and the relocation of aboveground utilities to be installed underground along the southerly half of the project site’s roadway frontage in conjunction with the approval of Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 that allows for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services as well as the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels on a partially developed site located at 15975 Stoddard Wells Road.

Recommendation:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed appeal and take the following action:

Adopt Resolution No. 22-043 - Affirming the decision of the Planning Commission to find the project Categorically Exempt from CEQA and to approve the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 as conditioned, which includes the requirements for the installation of street improvements and the relocation of aboveground utilities to be installed underground along the southerly half of the project site’s roadway frontage.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

Background:

On December 8, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Case No.

PLAN21-00020 via the adoption of Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. P-21-046, P- 21-047, & P-21-048 (Attachment E). The Commission’s approval allows for the development of a Sikh Temple and subdivision of property located at 15975 Stoddard Wells Road, which includes Conditions of Approval that require street improvements to 2 5
6 9
Stoddard Wells Road, as well as the undergrounding of overhead utility lines, along the street frontage of the project.

The graphic below is an illustration of the existing pavement, the proposed partial pavement widening by the applicant, and the Arterial street improvements required by the Planning Commission. These required improvements include pavement widening, street lighting, curb & gutter, commercial sidewalk, driveway approaches, and drainage structures to City standards, pursuant to Section 9.32.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code.

Section 16-2.02.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code allows an applicant that is aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission to appeal to the City Council within the 10 days following the decision. On December 17, 2021, the applicant of Case No. PLAN21-00020 filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment B), which seeks modification of Conditions of Approval requiring partial roadway improvements to Stoddard Wells Road and the undergrounding of overhead utility lines. As explained in the following “Discussion” section of this report, the applicant’s appeal states their belief that an error was made by the Planning Commission in their interpretation of Planning Commission Policy P-09-001, which is intended to provide guidance to the Planning Commission in their approval of roadway improvement and underground utility suspensions requests.
2 5
6 9
On January 13 and 14, 2022, the project applicant submitted requests to delay the City Council’s review of the subject appeal until such time as meetings were able to be held in person (Attachment C). Subsequently, on March 2, 2022, the applicant submitted an additional request to delay the subject public appeal hearing due to availability (Attachment C). These delay requests by the applicant were honored by staff and confirmed as allowable by the City Attorney.

On January 24, 2022, City staff submitted a memorandum to the City Council in accordance with Victorville Municipal Code (V.M.C.) requirements, describing the subject appeal and providing all supporting materials on which the Planning Commission’s decision was based (Attachment D).

Discussion:

The project applicant, who is also the appellant in the subject appeal, has filed an appeal to modify the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the subject Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 with the inclusion of Conditions of Approval that require full street improvements along the subject site’s southerly frontage (e.g. installation of the roadway pavements, curb, gutter, and sidewalk and undergrounding of utilities). The applicant is requesting a waiver of these street improvements. Although the applicant’s appeal notes their position that the Planning Commission misinterpreted their own Planning Commission policy that provides guidance on when to require the installation of full street improvements, City staff does not concur with the position of the applicant and the Planning Commission did not concur with the applicant’s argument either, as evidenced by the executive summary and verbatim minutes of the December 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment G). In order to summarize the discussion of required street improvements and utility line relocation requirements upon which the Planning Commission’s decision was based, staff provides the following synopsis.

Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001 (Attachment H)
Provides guidance to the Planning Commission on when to consider the allowance of suspended street improvements and the undergrounding of above ground utility lines. The policy is provided in a table format where the development type (e.g. New Development on Raw Land) is selected to a corresponding land use (e.g. Commercial and Industrial) to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on consideration of suspension requests.
Intended to provide standardized recommendations to the Planning Commission; however, the Planning Commission is specifically afforded the opportunity to consider adverse impacts to health safety and welfare in their enforcement of PCP-09-001.

Other Municipal Code Requirements
V.M.C. Section 9.32.040 – Requires any new development to install street improvements (e.g. street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) along abutting roadways in conjunction with proposed development that will have an aggregate value of more than thirty-two thousand dollars. 2 5
6 9
V.M.C. Section 16-5.12.170 – Requires any new development to relocate existing utility lines underground if they are located within the boundaries of the site, within or abutting roadway, require relocation as a result of the project, or are adjacent to the site and directly serve the property being developed.
V.M.C. Sections 16-4.08.010/040 – Requires any new land division, such as the included Tentative Parcel Map to install street improvements and the undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with the final map.

Planning Commission Decision
As discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report and the associated meetings minutes (Attachments F & G) for the purpose of interpreting PCP-09-001, the Planning Commission did not consider the project “Scattered Single-Family Residential” or “Change or Intensification of Use” as being applicable categories for the consideration of suspending all street and utility line improvements as requested by the applicant. Although applicant’s proposal could have been required to install full street improvements and relocate utility lines underground the length of the project site, which would have been in accordance with PCP-09-001 guidance, the Planning Commission provided relief by allowing a suspension of all required improvements along the project sites northerly half where no development was being proposed (Attachment I).
The City Engineer did not concur with the applicant’s traffic study (as included within Attachment F) and raised safety concerns with the limited street improvements as proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission members raised similar safety concerns given the amount of traffic currently traversing Stoddard Wells Road and the impact of the proposed development without full street improvements.

Based upon the requirements of the V.M.C. as well as the guidance provided by PCP-09- 001 as discussed herein, staff finds that the Planning Commission did not error in their decision to require full street improvements and the relocation of utility lines underground along the southerly portion of the site while providing relief from these requirements along the undeveloped northerly portion of the site. Additionally, the decision of the Planning Commission is in accordance with the provisions of the V.M.C. that require street improvements and the undergrounding of utility lines while also allowing consideration of impacts to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

Should the City Council concur with City staff’s assessment of the action taken by the Planning Commission, appropriate findings have been included in Resolution 22-043 as outlined in the “Recommendation” section of this report. However, should the City Council seek to modify decision of the Planning Commission, findings should be made to the contrary and shall be stated for the record.
2 5
6 9
Attachments:

Attachment A – City Council Resolution No. 22-043
Attachment B – Appeal Application – December 17, 2021
Attachment C – Meeting Delay Requests – January 13 & 14, 2022, and March 2, 2022 Attachment D – Transmittal of Record Memorandum to City Council – January 24, 2022 Attachment E – Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. P-21-046, -047, & -048 Attachment F – Planning Commission Staff Report & Attachments – December 8, 2021 Attachment G – Planning Commission Meeting Executive Summary & Verbatim Minutes Attachment H – Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001
Attachment I – Roadway Improvements Location
Attachment J – Aerial Image

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 22-043

RESOLUTION NO. 22-043

A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE AFFIRMING THE

DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AND FIND CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. PLAN21-00020 AS CONDITIONED, WHICH INCLUDES THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND THE

RELOCATION OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY HALF OF THE PROJECT SITE’S ROADWAY FRONTAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED 15975 STODDARD WELLS ROAD
WHEREAS, an application was received from Gurdeep Singh regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

THE EAST ½ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF THE SOUTHWEST ¼ OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 42’ AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 14, 1980 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80-064442 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the 8th day of December 2011, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit portion of the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, entitled “In-fill Development Projects” since the development meets the conditions described in the noted section of CEQA as follows:
the project site is less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban development including a Circulation Element designated roadway, a mobile home park, and a future Planned Unit Development; the proposal is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning regulations as religious facilities are conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying zone district; Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

the site has no value as habitat for rare, endangered, threatened, or special status species based upon the results of the project’s biological resources assessment as well as the site’s previously disturbed/cleared status; the development can be served by all required utilities and public services; and approval of the project will not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air or water or quality given the development standards required by the Victorville Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been determined the Tentative Parcel Map portion of the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, entitled Minor Land Divisions, given that the project entails the creation of four or fewer parcels, and the project meets all of the supplementary criteria of this exemption classification, including conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the site was adequate in size to accommodate the proposed use along with adequate development standards to ensure land use compatibility due to: the sites location on a partially developed site with remainder area available for future use as needed; the projects conformance with applicable standards of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code including sufficient access, on-site circulation capacity, and parking as conditioned; the projects proposed landscaping provided, the developments building location towards the rear of the site, and the sites location along an Arterial Roadway (Stoddard Wells Road); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-

3.02.050(a) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location of the conditional use was in accord with the objectives and requirements of the development code since Title 16 of the Municipal Code conditionally permits assembly uses such as this proposal within R-1 Zone Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

Districts, and because the zones purpose is to protect established neighborhoods of single- family dwellings with appropriate community facilities such as the proposed assembly use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-

3.02.050(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated is consistent with the General Plan and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare since: the site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential with R-1 Zone District designation that conditionally allows for the proposed use, and because the site will be developed in accordance with current Municipal Code standards and includes conditions of approval that decreases any potential impacts to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-

3.02.050(c) of the Victorville Municipal Code the traffic generated by the proposed conditional use will not overload the capacity of the surrounding street system and will not create a hazard to public safety since as the site is accessed via an Arterial Roadway, which will be able to adequately serve the needs of the site and reduce any potential hazardous impacts when improved as required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-

3.02.050(d) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed conditional use complies with each of the applicable provisions of Title 16, Chapter 3 of the Victorville Municipal Code as conditioned, since the site will include sufficient parking for the proposed use, site improvements are required in accordance with applicable Municipal Code requirements, and because assembly uses such as this proposal are listed as a conditional use within the R-1 (Single-family Residential) zoning of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 9.32.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code the suspension of street improvements approximately along the northern half of the site will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to install the remainder of unfinished right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-4.08.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code the required relocation of overhead utility lines underground approximately along the northern half of the site in association with this tentative parcel map is unreasonable given that said improvements have been suspended in association with the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, which was found to not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to relocate the subject utility lines underground; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-5.12.190 of the Victorville Municipal Code the suspension of the required relocation of overhead utility lines underground approximately along the northern half of the site will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to relocate the subject utility lines underground; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030 of the Victorville Municipal Code because: the development is in general compliance with the applicable development standards, regulations and requirements of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code as conditioned, including the applicable standards of the Commercial Design Guidelines; the proposal will not impact views or privacy of surrounding properties; the development will complement and improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity and minimize any adverse impacts to surrounding properties through building location and orientation that will locate trash receptacles away from the street frontage and provide enhanced landscaping, the use of various wall planes and building materials, as well as multiple vehicular access points utilizing via new public improvements; and because the conditions of approval contained within the resolution and the proposed design will ensure minimum disruption to surrounding uses and decrease any potential impacts to the Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

environment by providing enhanced landscaping, building orientation away from the street frontage, and providing mitigation measure to prevent fugitive dust; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after hearing all arguments for and against the proposal, and after hearing all testimony offered on the 8 th day of December, 2021, adopted Resolution Nos. P-21-046, P-21-047, & P-21-048 in accordance with Sections 16-

3.01.060, 16-3.02.040, & 16-4.01.020 of the Victorville Municipal Code, which granted Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00020 to allow for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services as well as the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels; and WHEREAS, an appeal application was received on the 17th day of December 2022 from Gurdeep Singh regarding the Planning Commission approval of Planning Case No. PLAN21- 00020; and
WHEREAS, the appellant believes there was an error made in the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project based upon misinterpretation of Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001 and the subsequent requirement to require full street improvements and the relocation of above ground utility lines underground along the southerly portion of the project site; and
WHEREAS, an appeal hearing was held before the City Council on the 17 th day of May 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, and Section 16-2.02.090 of the Victorville Municipal Code to hear arguments for and against the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all documents constituting the record upon which the Planning Commission’s decision was made, assessed the appellants statements on why they believe an error was made in the Planning Commission’s decision, and heard all public testimony provided during the public hearing; and
Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

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, City Council finds that the appellants position that an error was made in the Planning Commission’s interpretation of Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001 is not supported by evidence sufficient to overturn or modify the Planning Commission’s decision based upon: requirements outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code (V.M.C.) requiring the subject street improvements and relocation of above ground utility lines underground including V.M.C. sections 9.32.040, 16-5.12.170, and 16-4.08.010/040; non-agreement with the appellants position to consider the subject project “Scattered Single-Family Residential” and “Change or Intensification of Use” with respect to Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001 since proposed development is not an addition or expansion of the facility since the existing structures on-site are not intended to be utilized by the new development, the existing development on-site will continue to be used as residences/accessory residential structures and the new development will not change or intensify the existing land use, and the site is not presently entitled as a religious facility and is therefore not an expansion of an existing operation; ability for the Planning Commission consider safety hazards such as those traffic concerns raised by the City Engineer in lieu of the guidance provided by Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001; and the Planning Commission action to provide relief on the entire northern half of the project site by suspending all required street improvements and required relocation of above ground utilities.

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

SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission approved the subject Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map in accordance with all applicable Municipal Code provisions and Planning Commission Policies, and that the determination to approve the Resolution No. 22-043 May 17, 2022

project was based upon findings that the City Council does not believe were made in error nor does the City Council, after a review of the entire record, disagree with the action taken by the Planning Commission; and
SECTION 2. That the appellant’s request to modify the decision of the Planning Commission to grant Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No.

PLAN21-00020, that included Conditions of Approval that required street improvements and the relocation of aboveground utilities to be installed underground along the southerly half of the project site’s roadway frontage on the above-described property is denied.

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT B

Appeal Application

CJ December 17, 2021 8215906-0152
PLAN21-00020

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT C

Meeting Delay Requests

1 Alex Jauregui
From: Gurdeep Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Alex Jauregui
Subject: Sikh Temple Appeal to Council
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Sir,

Please postpone my appeal for hearing from Feb 1 to 2 months forward due to covid spread. I like to be heard in person rather than Zoom.

Thanks and Regards.

Gurdeep Singh
1 Alex Jauregui
From: Gurdeep Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Alex Jauregui; Scott Webb; Debra S. Jones; Nancy Jaswal Subject: Appeal to council Schedule. Sikh Temple at 15975 Stoddard Wells Road. [EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Sir,

I'm going to India in Mach and will be back first wk of April. If possible please schedule either April 12 0r 19 I would really appreciate it. By than we probably be having live meetings.

Thanks and regards

Gurdeep Singh
1 Alex Jauregui
From: Alex Jauregui
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 9:19 AM
To: Gurdeep Singh; Robert Kilpatrick
Subject: RE: Apeal hearing by Council on April 19, 2022 Hi Gurdeep,

As requested and discussed this morning, I will delay the scheduling of the subject public hearing until the City Council’s meeting on May 17, 2022.

From: Gurdeep Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Alex Jauregui <[email protected]>; Robert Kilpatrick <[email protected]> Subject: Apeal hearing by Council on April 19, 2022

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon Sir,
Due to war initiated by Russia with Ukraine. Our Air tickets to India are cancelled.

I was trying to rebook with other airlines those are not affected that has different route, very very expensive.

So, finally booked American airlines
March 16 thro May 11, 2022.

Will you be kind to postpone on May 24th (not May 31 long wkend) or April 7

I'm really sorry.

Thanks and regards
Gurdeep Singh
GPMKC Inc.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT D

Transmittal of Record
Memorandum

Discussion
Pursuant to Section 16-2.02.070 of the V.M.C., City staff is required to " .. . transmit a copy of the appeal application and all supporting materials to ... City Council. .. " within 45 days of the appeal being submitted by the appellant. Historically this requirement would be addressed by a public appeal hearing on the matter within the noted 45 days. However, according to Section 16-

2.02.090 of the V.M.C., the required public hearing to consider the appeal is not subject to the noted 45 day period.

In the subject case, the project applicant and appellant are the same entity and have requested that the public hearing for the appeal be delayed until public hearings are able to be attended in person (Attachment B). In consultation with the City Attorney's office it was determined that the request to delay the required public hearing by the applicant/appellant is allowable and is not in violation of the V.M.C. requirements.

Conclusion
As presented in this memorandum, all time sensitive requirements of the V.M.C. have been fulfilled at this time and the formal presentation of this item via a public appeal hearing in the coming months will complete all requirements of the V.M.C. as outlined herein.

Additionally, Staff notes that discussion of this appeal amongst City Council members prior to the public hearing may constitute a Brown Act violation. Therefore, the City Attorney has noted that City Council Members should refrain from discussing the subject appeal with one another prior to the items scheduled public hearing.

Attachments
Attachment A -Appeal Application - December 17, 2021
Attachment B -Applicant/Appellant Meeting Delay Request - January 13 & 14, 2021 Attachment C-Approved Resolution Nos. P-21-046, P-21-047, & P-21-048 Attachment D -Planning Commission Staff Report & Attachments - December 8, 2021 Attachment E -Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes Cc:

KM/aj
Jenele Davidson, Deputy City Manger
Jennifer Thompson, City Clerk
Scott Webb, City Planner
Page2

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT E

Approved Planning
Commission Resolutions
P-21-046, P-21-047, & P-21-048

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT F

Planning Commission
Staff Report & Attachments

3. A Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map with an environmental exemption to allow for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services as well as the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels on a partially developed site zoned R-1 B½ (Single-Family Residential with a half-acre minimum size).

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 – Find the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) titled “In-Fill Development Projects” and find the Tentative Parcel Map Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15315 of CEQA titled “Minor Land Divisions”; and 2. Conditional Use Permit – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-046, approving the Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and 3. Site Plan – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-047, approving the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and 4. Tentative Parcel Map – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-048, approving the Tentative Parcel Map portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Item Number: 3
Planning Commission

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Meeting of: December 8, 2021
Submitted By:

Alex Jauregui, Senior Planner

Case:

PLAN21-00020
Subject:

A Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map with an environmental exemption to allow for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services as well as the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels on a partially developed site zoned R-1 B½ (Single-Family Residential with a half-acre minimum size).

Applicant:

Gurdeep Singh
Location:
15975 Stoddard Wells Road
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 – Find the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) titled “In-Fill Development Projects” and find the Tentative Parcel Map Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15315 of CEQA titled “Minor Land Divisions”; and

2. Conditional Use Permit – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-046, approving the Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and

3. Site Plan – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-047, approving the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and 2 2
8 3

4. Tentative Parcel Map – Adopt Resolution No. P-21-048, approving the Tentative Parcel Map portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

Summary:

The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit in order to allow for the development of a religious facility (Sikh temple) on a previously disturbed site with existing single-family homes and accessory structures. The proposed development will take place on an approximately 2.3 acre project area on an overall 12.27 acre site that is largely undeveloped and has been previously cleared of native vegetation and topographical features. Included in the proposal is a 2-story facility of approximately 29,000 sq. ft. with a new parking field, landscaping, and improved site access to meet City standards. Additionally, the proposal includes a Tentative Parcel Map that will divide the existing site into three separate parcels that divides the two existing single-family dwellings from the remainder of the site.

Discussion/Analysis:

1. Environmental Assessment.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a list of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These “Categorical Exemptions” are applicable to certain projects and exempt a land use proposal from CEQA provided they are found not to have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, based upon the various Categorical Exemptions provided by CEQA, Staff finds that the following are applicable to the subject proposal:

In-Fill Development Projects (Applicable to Site Plan & Conditional Use Permit) Section 15332 of CEQA allows for new construction of a building on a site less than five acres in size if the project meets certain benchmarks. In accordance with the noted CEQA Section 15332, Staff finds that the proposed Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit meets said benchmarks and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA because:
oThe scope of work area is less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban development including a Circulation Element designated roadway, a mobile home park, and a future Planned Unit Development; oThe proposal is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning regulations as religious facilities are conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying zone district;
oThe site has no value as habitat for rare, endangered, threatened, or special status species based upon the results of the project’s biological resources assessment as well as the site’s previously disturbed/cleared status; oThe development can be served by all required utilities and public services; and 2 2
8 3
oApproval of the project will not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air or water or quality given the development standards required by the Victorville Municipal Code.

Minor Land Divisions (Applicable to Tentative Parcel Map) Section 15315 of CEQA allows for the subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels when: the land division is in compliance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to local standards are available, and the parcel does not have an average slope of greater than 20%.

Staff finds that the proposed land division complies with the noted standards as designed and that the subject Categorical Exemption from CEQA is applicable to the Tentative Parcel Map.

While deemed categorically exempt as noted, Staff has received comments from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) as noted in Attachment M, which recommends dust control measures. Therefore, Staff has included Site Plan Condition 31 that requires the measures noted by MDAQMD, which would be required regardless due to MDAQMD’s approval authority and are not necessary to deem the project categorically exempt from CEQA.

2. Conditional Use Permit.

General Information
The applicant is requesting approval of a religious facility (Sikh temple) that is considered an assembly use, which is conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying single-family residential zoning pursuant to Section 16-3.07.010 - Table 7-1 of the Development Code. As proposed by the applicant, the temple building will be utilized primarily for assembly (e.g. meditation & singing) as well as accessory uses such as food preparation, dining, and instruction in the Panjabi language and musical instruments. A complete description of the proposed use has been provided by the applicant (Attachment G); however, anticipated attendance and hours of operation are noted as follows:
oSunday: 8AM-3PM – Less than 100 visitors.
oMon.-Fri.: Various times – Less than 10 visitors.
oSaturday: Special Occasions – Less than 100 visitors
(Approx. 10 weeks out of the year)
Located within a R-1B½ (Single-Family Residential with a half-acre minimum size) zone district, the proposed assembly use is surrounded on all sides by residential zone districts with properties to the west consisting of a mobile home park and a future Planned Unit Development (PUD) separated from the site by an Arterial roadway (Stoddard Wells Road), and on the remaining sides by sparsely and undeveloped single-family properties. Additionally, the proposed development is located generally on the southern half of the overall 12.27 acre site while the remaining northern half is proposed to remain undeveloped. With the nearest 2 2
8 3
residence approximately 500 linear feet from the proposed use and future PUD residences over 200 linear feet from the site and separated by Stoddard Wells Road, the proposed assembly use is not anticipated to create noise or other substantial impacts that would adversely affect neighboring residents. Due to the fact that the proposed project has been sited on the property setback from the roadway in a manner that will reduce noise impacts to neighbors, and because Stoddard Wells Road is a designated Arterial Roadway designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic and associated noise, Staff finds that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact to surrounding residential properties. Appropriate findings have been included in Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. P-21-046 (Attachment A) should the Planning Commission concur with Staff’s assessment.
As noted in the following Staff Analysis, the proposal includes a Tentative Parcel Map that will divide the subject site into three separate parcels. Although not included in the scope of the Conditional Use Permit, existing homes located on Lots 1 & 2 of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map will be used as housing for the religious facility’s priest and volunteers. Inasmuch as single-family dwellings are permitted in the underlying zoning and because the houses will be located on separate parcels, no additional analysis is required for this component of the proposal. However, should the Tentative Parcel Map not be recorded prior to a Certificate of Occupancy request for the subject site, Staff has included Conditional Use Permit Condition of Approval 3 in order to address the matter administratively.

3. Site Plan.

General Information
The site is located in the northern part of the City east of the Mojave River and Stoddard Wells Road. The location has been previously disturbed/cleared and includes two residences (that are proposed to be subdivided into individual lots) as well as two accessory buildings that are intended to be utilized in their existing condition as storage space for the proposed development. The subject site is partially developed with single family homes and accessory structures with a large portion of the property being previously utilized for agricultural purposes; however, existing conditions include overhead utility lines and uncompleted roadway improvements along the site’s frontage.

Site Access / Parking
Access to the site is proposed through two driveways at Stoddard Wells Road that will also be used as access to the existing residences on-site. In order to ensure access to the project site and existing single-family homes is maintained given their shared access points, Staff has included Site Plan Condition 7 requiring a reciprocal access agreement, easement, CC&R’s or other document to be in place prior to the recordation of any final map. Additionally, as discussed in the “Public 2 2
8 3
Improvements” section of this Site Plan analysis, the proposal will require additional improvements at the secondary (southerly) driveway in order to ensure adequate emergency access.
The Development Code requires 1 off-street parking space per 35 sq. ft. of non- fixed primary assembly area as well as 1 space per classroom or secondary assembly area. Since the proposal’s plans identify the second floor “Darbar Hall” as the primary assembly area that requires 1 space per 35 sq. ft. of assembly area, the remainder of the proposal’s classrooms and secondary assembly areas (“Langer Hall”) each require 1 space each. Therefore, required parking is calculated as follows:

Building Area Required
Parking Parking Calculation
Primary Assembly Area 141 4944 sq. ft. / 35 sq. ft. = 141 Classroom /
Secondary Assembly Area 25 10 classrooms (2nd floor) + 13 rooms (1st floor) + Langer Hall + Lobby = 25
Total Required Parking 166
The proposed 160 spaces on-site is deficient 6 spaces pursuant to Development Code standards; however, ample area exists on-site to provide additional parking and has been conditioned accordingly with Site Plan Condition 8. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed on-site parking adequate and in accordance with Development Code standards as conditioned.
All on-site drive aisles proposed are 30’ in width and comply with Title 16 and emergency access standards as conditioned. Additionally, future on-site connections are provided to unused portions of the site to accommodate future development and ensure adequate emergency access. In order limit access to undeveloped portions of the site as well as prevent the unauthorized use of these areas for storage, parking, etc., Staff has included Site Plan Condition 9, which requires the installation of gates to restrict access to these areas of the site. Stamped color concrete is noted on the site plan at the main entrance to the site although no details are provided. Therefore, Staff has included Site Plan Condition 10, requiring stamped color concrete details/specifications to be provided during plan check review in accordance with the Commercial Design Guidelines.

Site Improvements
The proposal complies with some requirements of Title 16 and the Commercial Design Guidelines including:
oGeneral Development Standards – Requirements such as minimum setbacks, lot coverage, and building height comply with Development Code standards. oLandscaping – Multiple 24-inch box trees are provided throughout the parking area with landscape planters located every eight parking spaces. Additionally, 2 2
8 3
landscape planters are a minimum of 5’ interior width and located along the perimeter of most parking areas.
oTrash Enclosure – A trash enclosure is provided away from the site’s street frontage and towards the rear of the site with access for collection vehicles. In accordance with Sanitation Division standards the design includes space for 3 bins (refuse, recycling, and food waste) as well as pedestrian access. Although the items noted previously comply with the requirements of Title 16 and the Commercial Design Guidelines, other components of the proposal require attention in order to fully comply with the noted standards as follows:
oLandscaping – The proposal lacks landscaping at the site’s entry as well as along the southerly parking field on-site (see Attachment H); therefore, Site Plan Condition 17 has been included in order to require landscape improvements in these areas. Additionally, since some of the proposed plant species are not included in the City’s approved plant list and in order to ensure the proposal remains in full compliance with Title 16 standards, Staff has included Site Plan Conditions 18 - 21, requiring all plant species and groundcover to be installed and maintained per City standards. oUnimproved Areas – As discussed throughout the Site Plan Analysis, various portions of the site are proposed to remain in an unimproved/partially improved condition such as the entire northern half of the existing parcel as well as the area where existing buildings are to be used as storage (see Attachment H).

Although bare dirt within new development is prohibited, Staff finds that with restricted access to these areas and perimeter/screen landscaping required per Site Plan Conditions 9 & 17, these conditions are acceptable given the low visibility of the facility and future development potential given the size of the undeveloped areas. Therefore, appropriate findings have been included in Site Plan Resolution No. P-21-047 (Attachment B) should the Planning Commission concur with Staff’s assessment.
oTrash Enclosure – While the trash enclosure generally complies with Title 16 standards, wrought iron security fencing is missing between the roof and the wall to restrict unauthorized access. Therefore, Site Plan Condition 22 has been included accordingly.
Since the existing single-family homes on-site are proposed to be separated into individual parcels that comply with the sites R-1B½ zoning requirements, their non- conforming status due to missing landscaping and off-street parking is permitted to remain without required improvements. This allowance is provided pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16-3.05.030/040 since the homes are not being enlarged or altered in a manner that increases the existing non-conforming discrepancies noted.
2 2
8 3
Public Improvements
Public improvements are required by the various sections of the Victorville Municipal Code as follows:
oStreet Improvements - The project site abuts Stoddard Wells Road, a General Plan - Circulation Element designated Arterial Roadway that is currently not constructed to City standard as it is not built to the ultimate half-width of 49’ (98’ total width). Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.32.040, the applicant is required to install street improvements (e.g. street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) along the site’s entire frontage in conjunction with the proposed development since the project’s construction will have aggregate value of more than thirty-two thousand dollars.
oUndergrounding of Utilities – The project site’s Stoddard Wells Road frontage includes overhead utility lines the length of the site. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16-5.12.170, the applicant is required to relocate these utility lines underground as they are located within the boundaries of the site as well as within the Stoddard Wells right-of-way, and directly serve the property being developed.
oTentative Parcel Map – As noted in the Tentative Parcel Map Discussion, Victorville Municipal Code Sections 16-4.08.010/040 also require the applicant to install street improvements and the undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with any parcel map.
Although street improvements and the undergrounding of utilities is required for development such as the subject proposal, various waivers, suspensions, and variances to these standards are allowable by Victorville Municipal Code Sections

9.32.050/060 (street improvements), 16-5.12.190 (overhead utility lines), and 16-

4.08.010/040 (parcel map requirements). In order to guide the Planning Commission in their review of requests to suspend or waive (in whole or in part) street improvement and underground utility line requests, Policy PCP-09-001 was approved by the Planning Commission via Resolution No. P-09-036 (Attachment I).
For the purpose of policy PCP-09-001, Staff has determined that the subject project should be considered “Commercial” and “New Development on Vacant Raw Land”, which requires full public improvements. However, the applicant has requested a suspension of the required public improvements, proposing limited street improvements and the maintaining of overhead utility lines along the entire Stoddard Wells Road frontage. The applicant’s request is based upon their interpretation of PCP-09-001 considering the project as “Scattered Single-Family Residential” and “Change or Intensification of Use” being applicable categories (Attachment J). Additionally, the applicant commissioned a traffic study on their own accord to support their position (Attachment K), which speaks to the necessity of the roadway improvements based on vehicle trips as well as sight distances but does not address Municipal Code standards or Planning Commission policy 2 2
8 3
guidance as noted. Therefore, Staff does not concur with the applicant’s interpretation of the noted policy because:
oThe proposed development is not an addition or expansion of the facility since the existing structures on-site are not intended to be utilized by the new development, which is substantially larger than the existing development square footage and is proposed to operate exclusive of the exiting development on-site.
oThe existing development on-site will continue to be used as residences/accessory residential structures and the new development will not change or intensify the existing land use as evidenced by the proposed Tentative Parcel Map.
oThe site is not presently entitled as a religious facility and is therefore not an expansion of an existing operation.

Although Staff does not concur with the applicant’s assessment of the applicable provisions of policy PCP-09-001, the City Planner and City Engineer previously met with the applicant in order to find a path forward. While an almost complete suspension as proposed by the applicant cannot be supported, it was determined during said meeting that the approximately north half of the site (see Attachment H) could be supported for suspension given the undeveloped nature of the area and potential for future development that would include public improvements.

Therefore, although the applicant maintains their request of an almost complete suspension as shown on the site plan, grading plan and traffic study, Staff does not support this request and has included appropriate findings as well as Site Plan Conditions of Approval 24, 33 & 38 in order to require full street improvements and the undergrounding of utilities along the site’s southerly frontage that is impacted by the applicant’s proposal.

Elevations
The proposals elevations (Attachment D) include architectural treatments and features on all sides, including stone veneer, decorative door and window trim, and tower elements with dome features. The applicant has worked with Staff to provide revised elevations that comply with the height allowances provided by the Development Code and are designed in accordance with the standards of the Commercial Design Guidelines. Staff supports the building design as proposed. Building height within the R-1 Zone District allows for building up to 30’ in height while Section 16-3.24.050 of the Municipal Code allows architectural features such as the proposed tower elements to increase said height by up to 50%. Therefore, the proposed 30’ tall building and associated 45’ tower elements are designed in accordance with Municipal Code allowances.
2 2
8 3

4. Tentative Parcel Map.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will create three separate parcels from a single parcel and locate the existing single-family homes on their own lots. All proposed lots comply with the site’s underlying R-1B½ zoning with lot dimensions and lot sizes meeting minimum standards.
In order to ensure all parcels maintain adequate site access in the future, Staff has included Tentative Parcel Map Condition 3, requiring the inclusion of an access easement, recordation of a reciprocal access agreement between the subject parcels, or other means to memorialize access to the created parcels. Victorville Municipal Code Sections 16-4.08.010/040 require the applicant to install street improvements as well as locate above ground utilities underground in conjunction with any parcel map. As discussed in the Site Plan discussion, Staff supports the partial implementation of this standard, with the northerly half of the site being supported for suspension as required by Tentative Parcel Map Conditions of Approval 4 & 15.

Site Characteristics:

Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Specific
Plan
Site Partially Developed
(Single-Family Dwellings)
Very Low
Density Residential R-1B½ N/A
North Undeveloped Very Low
Density Residential R-1B½ N/A
South Single-family Residence Very Low
Density Residential R-1B½ N/A
East Undeveloped Very Low
Density Residential R-1B½ N/A
West Undeveloped
(formerly farmland)
Medium
Density Residential
Planned Unit
Development N/A
Number of Radius Letters Mailed: 9
2 2
8 3
Attachments:

Attachment A – Resolution No. P-21-046 (Conditional Use Permit) Attachment B – Resolution No. P-21-047 (Site Plan)
Attachment C – Resolution No. P-21-048 (Tentative Parcel Map) Attachment D – Site Plan Graphics
Attachment E – Landscape, Grading, and Utility Plans
Attachment F – Tentative Parcel Map
Attachment G – Facility Description / Proposed Operations Attachment H – Site Plan & Tentative Parcel Map w/notes Attachment I – Planning Commission Policy PCP-09-001
Attachment J – Applicant’s Policy PCP-09-001 Interpretation Attachment K – Traffic Study
Attachment L – Biological Resources Assessment
Attachment M – Agency Comments Received
Attachment N – Aerial Image

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT A

RESOLUTION NO. P-21-046

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN21-00020; A

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 29,000 SQUARE FOOT SIKH TEMPLE AND ACCESSORY SERVICES ON A PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SITE ZONED R-1 B1/2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A HALF-ACRE MINIMUM SIZE) LOCATED AT 15975 STODDARD WELLS ROAD WHEREAS, an application has been received from Gurdeep Singh regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

LOT 4, APPLETON LAND, WATER AND POWER COMPANY SUBDIVISION NO. 1, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 11, 1971 IN BOOK 7685, PAGE 961, OFFICIAL RECORDS; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 8 th day of December 2021, and, 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, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, entitled “In-fill Development Projects” since the development meets the conditions described in the noted section of CEQA as follows: the project site is less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban development including a Circulation Element designated roadway, a mobile home park, and a future Planned Unit Development; the proposal is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning regulations as religious facilities are conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying zone district; the site has no value as habitat for rare, endangered, threatened, or special status species based upon the results of the project’s biological resources assessment as well as the site’s previously disturbed/cleared status; the P-21-046 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

development can be served by all required utilities and public services; and approval of the project will not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air or water or quality given the development standards required by the Victorville Municipal Code; 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: the sites location on a partially developed site with remainder area available for future use as needed; the projects conformance with applicable standards of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code including sufficient access, on-site circulation capacity, and parking as conditioned; the projects proposed landscaping provided, the developments building location towards the rear of the site, and the sites location along an Arterial Roadway (Stoddard Wells Road); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(a) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives and requirements of the development code since Title 16 of the Municipal Code conditionally permits assembly uses such as this proposal within R-1 Zone Districts, and because the zones purpose is to protect established neighborhoods of single-family dwellings with appropriate community facilities such as the proposed assembly use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated is consistent with the General Plan and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare since: the site has a General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential with R-1 Zone District designation that conditionally allows for the proposed use, and because the site will be developed in accordance with current Municipal Code P-21-046 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

standards and includes conditions of approval that decreases any potential impacts to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(c) of the Victorville Municipal Code the traffic generated by the proposed conditional use will not overload the capacity of the surrounding street system and will not create a hazard to public safety since as the site is accessed via an Arterial Roadway, which will be able to adequately serve the needs of the site and reduce any potential hazardous impacts when improved as required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(d) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed conditional use complies with each of the applicable provisions of Title 16, Chapter 3 of the Victorville Municipal Code as conditioned, since the site will include sufficient parking for the proposed use, site improvements are required in accordance with applicable Municipal Code requirements, and because assembly uses such as this proposal are listed as a conditional use within the R-1 (Single-family Residential) zoning of the site; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 16-3.02.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code that Conditional Use Permit Case No.

PLAN21-00020, a Conditional Use Permit with a categorical exemption to allow for an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services on a partially developed site zoned R-1B1/2 (Single-family Residential with a half-acre minimum size) on the hereinabove described property be granted subject to the following conditions of approval:

P-21-046 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

Planning Conditions:

1. This approval shall be valid for an assembly use (religious facility) that will be utilized primarily for assembly (e.g. meditation & singing) as well as accessory uses such as food preparation, dining, and instruction in language and musical instruments at the herein described location.

Approved hours of operation and attendance include the following:
o Sunday: 8AM-3PM – Less than 100 visitors.
o Mon.-Fri.: Various times – Less than 10 visitors.
o Saturday: Special Occasions – Less than 100 visitors
(Approx. 10 weeks out of the year)
The Zoning Administrator may allow revised hours of operation and accessory or revised services not listed in this approval upon written request from the facility operator and property owner/manager, providing the approved use does not change and the changes do not negatively affect the public health, safety, and welfare nor cause nonconformance with findings made by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 16-3.02.050 of the Development Code.

2. Should excessive noise be reported due to the operation in a manner that constitutes a nuisance as determined by the City’s Code Enforcement Department, the applicant/business owner shall remedy the issue with operating adjustments such as revised hours of operation, soundproofing, etc., as approved by and to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.

3. Should the associated Tentative Parcel Map portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020 not be recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the subject use, the applicant shall submit a complete application for an administrative Conditional Use Permit Modification in order to obtain approval of residential uses in association with the proposed assembly use.

4. 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.

5. Any expansion of the proposed use beyond the scope of this conditional use permit shall require submission and approval of a conditional use permit modification or a new conditional use permit based upon the extent of the expansion.

6. 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.

7. On-site food or clothing giveaways and/or other accessory uses that will attract non-members to the church for reasons other than regularly scheduled services or functions are prohibited unless otherwise approved via a Temporary Use Permit. Any food or clothing giveaways and/or other accessory uses that will attract non-members to the church for reasons other than regularly scheduled services or functions may be conducted at an off-site location approved by the City of Victorville.

8. All requirements of the associated Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy or the commencement of any assembly uses on-site.

P-21-046 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

13. 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 Development Department, 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 it is found that there are circumstances unique to the use that is not applicable to other uses.

14. 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.

15. 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.

Fire Conditions:

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

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION NO. P-21-047

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE GRANTING THE SITE PLAN PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN21-00020; A SITE PLAN WITH AN

ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 29,000 SQUARE FOOT SIKH TEMPLE AND ACCESSORY SERVICES ON A PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SITE ZONED R-1 B1/2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A HALF-ACRE MINIMUM SIZE) LOCATED AT 15975 STODDARD WELLS ROAD WHEREAS, an application has been received from Gurdeep Singh regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

LOT 4, APPLETON LAND, WATER AND POWER COMPANY SUBDIVISION NO. 1, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 11, 1971 IN BOOK 7685, PAGE 961, OFFICIAL RECORDS; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 8 th day of December 2021, and, 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, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, entitled “In-fill Development Projects” since the development meets the conditions described in the noted section of CEQA as follows: the project site is less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban development including a Circulation Element designated roadway, a mobile home park, and a future Planned Unit Development; the proposal is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning regulations as religious facilities are conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying zone district; the site has no value as habitat for rare, endangered, threatened, or special status species based upon the results of the project’s P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

biological resources assessment as well as the site’s previously disturbed/cleared status; the development can be served by all required utilities and public services; and approval of the project will not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air or water or quality given the development standards required by the Victorville Municipal Code; 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: the sites location on a partially developed site with remainder area available for future use as needed; the projects conformance with applicable standards of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code including sufficient access, on-site circulation capacity, and parking as conditioned; the projects proposed landscaping provided, the developments building location towards the rear of the site, and the sites location along an Arterial Roadway (Stoddard Wells Road); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 9.32.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code the suspension of street improvements approximately along the northern half of the site will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to install the remainder of unfinished right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-5.12.190 of the Victorville Municipal Code the suspension of the required relocation of overhead utility lines underground approximately along the northern half of the site will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to relocate the subject utility lines underground; and P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-

3.01.030(f) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed deviation from the development standard of prohibiting bare dirt on developed sites is acceptable given the low visibility of the facility and future development potential due to the size of the undeveloped areas without being injurious to the public health, safety and welfare nor having an adverse effect on surrounding properties based upon characteristics of the site, which will retain existing conditions in the subject areas and include restricted access as conditioned to avoid new impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan satisfies the Site Plan Review criteria, pursuant to Section 16-3.01.030 of the Victorville Municipal Code because: the development is in general compliance with the applicable development standards, regulations and requirements of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code as conditioned, including the applicable standards of the Commercial Design Guidelines; the proposal will not impact views or privacy of surrounding properties; the development will complement and improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity and minimize any adverse impacts to surrounding properties through building location and orientation that will locate trash receptacles away from the street frontage and provide enhanced landscaping, the use of various wall planes and building materials, as well as multiple vehicular access points utilizing via new public improvements; and because the conditions of approval contained within the resolution and the proposed design will ensure minimum disruption to surrounding uses and decrease any potential impacts to the environment by providing enhanced landscaping, building orientation away from the street frontage, and providing mitigation measure to prevent fugitive dust; 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.

PLAN21-00020, a Site Plan with an environmental exemption to allow for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot Sikh temple and accessory services on a partially developed P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

site zoned R-1B1/2 (Single-Family Residential with a half-acre minimum size) on the hereinabove described property be granted subject to the following conditions of approval:

Planning Conditions:

1. This approval allows for the development of an approximately 29,000 square foot 2-story religious facility (Sikh temple) and associated improvements such as landscaping, parking, improved site access, water quality measures, and the installation of a trash enclosure on the hereinabove described property.

2. Should excessive noise be reported due to the operation in a manner that constitutes a nuisance as determined by the City’s Code Enforcement Department, the applicant/business owner shall remedy the issue with operating adjustments such as revised hours of operation, soundproofing, etc., as approved by and to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.

3. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable development standards of Title 16 and shall be in general compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines.

4. 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.

5. Any change in use or implementation of a new use within the facility, which will require additional parking spaces resulting in further 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 Development Department review and approval.

7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide proof of a recorded reciprocal access agreement, easement, or executed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) between the project site and proposed single-family residences on-site ensuring the shared driveway and access to the sites remains available for use.

8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise or cause to have revised the site plan to include at least 166 off-street parking spaces in accordance with Title 16 size and access standards.

9. Decorative access gates or bollard type swing gates shall be installed at all proposed access points to unused portions of the site, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator and Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The required access gates shall also be noted on the approved construction plans accordingly.

10. Enhanced paving (e.g. stamped color concrete) shall be installed at the main driveway entrance to the site in a color and design consistent with architectural theme of the proposed development, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. The stamped color concrete shall also be noted on the approved construction plans accordingly.

P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

14. All rooftop and/or ground mounted equipment visible from public right-of-ways shall be screened from view and architecturally integrated into the building.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Landscaping to match the design present thought the new parking area shall installed in those areas indicated in the subject Planning Commission Staff Report “Attachment H” and shall include a permanent watering system, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. The new landscaping shall also be noted on the approved landscape plans accordingly.

18. A six-inch wide planter curbing, in accordance with Engineering Standard S-09, is required along the perimeter of all 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 unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, said curbing shall be installed at all driveways and drive aisles where abutting undeveloped property in order to prevent access to undeveloped areas of the site. The grading and site plans shall clearly show all required curbing.

19. 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
P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

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.

20. All proposed landscaping plant materials shall be listed on the City’s approved water-wise plant list and verified during the building permit plan check. Any plant materials not listed on the approved plant shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to confirm the plant’s ability to survive in the local climate.

21. 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.

22. The applicant shall install a trash enclosure 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, wrought iron that fully encloses the trash enclosure between the block wall/metal gates and the roof to prevent unauthorized entry and be designed to accommodate 3 separate bins for general refuse, recyclables, and food waste/organics. 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 Planning Staff review and approval.

23. All light standards (wall and freestanding) shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance and be architecturally compatible with the design of the building.

Typical square “shoebox” style lighting is prohibited.

24. Street improvements (e.g. pavement widening, installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) and the relocation of above ground utility lines underground shall only be required along the entire sites southerly frontage at Stoddard Wells Road, or approximately from the northern boundary of Tentative Parcel Map Lot 1 to the southern boundary of Tentative Parcel Map Lot 3, as indicated in the subject Planning Commission Staff Report “Attachment H”, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator and City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building or encroachment permit.

25. The applicant/property owner shall agree in writing to participate in any future undergrounding of utilities and any street improvement program for the block on which the property is located whether privately or publicly initiated. This agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk prior to the issuance of a building or encroachment permit.

26. 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.

P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

27. 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 Development Department, 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 it is found that there are circumstances unique to the use that is not applicable to other uses.

28. 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.

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

30. 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.

31. The applicant shall comply with all Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) requirements as follows:
Prepare and submit to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project.
Signage compliant with Rule 403 Attachment B shall be erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction; Use a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize fugitive dust emissions. For project with exposed sands or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.
All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule, or project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
All maintenance and access vehicular road and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel, or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project-related trackout within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.
Additionally, obtain District permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to: Internal Combustion P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

Engines with a manufacturers maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.

Engineering Conditions:

32. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall prepare and record a parcel map that addresses the following:
i. The vacation of the excess right-of-way for Stoddard Wells Road. ii. All required lot mergers, lot-line adjustments, and/or the creation of new parcels.

33. 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 frontage of the project, in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements of the City of Victorville. The required street improvements include:
i. Construction of street improvements on the Stoddard Wells Road frontage including the following pavement widening, street lighting, curb & gutter, commercial sidewalk, driveway approaches, and drainage structures to City standards along the street frontage.

34. The developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement as required by Section 16-

4.08.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code and Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act for the completion of any improvements as set forth in Section 16-4.09.010 that have not been completed. Said agreement shall be secured by one of the forms specified by Section

17.64.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code.

35. 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 Development Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.

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

37. 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 Development Department for review and approval

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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 P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

for the connection to and construction of any facilities that are to be dedicated to, owned and maintained by the City.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

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

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

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

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

P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.

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

58. 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.

Building Conditions:

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

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

61. 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 P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

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
Fire Conditions:

62. Shall comply with all 2019 Building and Fire Code requirements based on occupancy classification.

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

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

65. Paved access from 2 points shall be required for completion and occupancy. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction commencement.

66. Interior/exterior Fire Department access roadways/fire lanes shall be required per Fire Department Standard. Fire Department access roadways providing access to the buildings in this project shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide and shall be directly adjacent to 2 sides of the building. If gates, installed must comply with Fire Department Standards.

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

68. Provide a preliminary on-site fire protection plan which indicates the location of all required fire protection appliances (FDC’s, PIV’s, RP’s, hydrants, etc.) Required appliances shall be unobstructed by fencing, storage containers, parked vehicles, etc.

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

70. Required fire flow for this project is 2,250gpm @ 20psi for 3 hours duration at furthest remote hydrant. Contact Water Department to assure availability of required fire flow.

71. Fire Department access roadways greater than 150’ in length shall require approved turnarounds per Fire Department Standard. Any street exceeding 600; will require secondary access.

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

73. 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.

P-21-047 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

74. Street Addressing for Commercial, Condominiums and Industrial Buildings a. The street address shall be posted with a minimum of twelve (12) inch in height numbers with a one (1) inch stroke, visible from the street of the corresponding address. During the hours of darkness, they shall be electrically illuminated either externally or internally. b. Posted numbers shall contrast with their background and be legible from the street of the corresponding address prior to occupancy.
c. Where building setbacks exceed one hundred (100) feet from roadway, additional non- illuminated contrasting numbers twelve (12) inch in height with a one (1) inch stroke, shall be displayed at property access entrance on a permanent monument. d. Commercial/Industrial buildings - Secondary or rear entrance doors shall be marked with unit designators with a minimum of four (4) inch high and 3/8-inch stroke numbers/letters. e. In multifamily complex there shall be positioned at each entrance of the complex, an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex showing the location of fire hydrants, egress/ingress, building and unit designators within the complex f. Where interior buildings exist, completely detached from roadway circulation, illuminated or reflector signs shall be posted along walkway entrances from road circulation points, indicating interior buildings that take access from that particular path. 1) Each individual unit/building within the complex shall display a prominent identification letter, not less than six (6) inches in height and on-half (1/2) inch stroke, which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. During the hours of darkness, these letters shall be internally or externally electrically illuminated. g. Each individual unit shall have a number/letter with the first digit indicating floor level, not less than four (4) inches in height and one-half (1/2) inch stroke.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT C

RESOLUTION NO. P-21-048

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE GRANTING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PORTION OF CASE NO. PLAN21-00020; A

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE

SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE PARCEL INTO THREE SEPARATE PARCELS ON A PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SITE ZONED R-1B½ (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A HALF-ACRE MINIMUM SIZE) LOCATED AT 15975 STODDARD WELLS ROAD
WHEREAS, an application has been received from Gurdeep Singh regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

LOT 4, APPLETON LAND, WATER AND POWER COMPANY SUBDIVISION NO. 1, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 19 OF MAPS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 11, 1971 IN BOOK 7685, PAGE 961, OFFICIAL RECORDS; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 8th day of December 2021, pursuant to California Government Code Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 3, to hear arguments for and against the issue; and
WHEREAS, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, entitled Minor Land Divisions, given that the project entails the creation of four or fewer parcels, and the project meets all of the supplementary criteria of this exemption classification, including conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent; and
P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed parcel map and the parcels it will create are consistent with the minimum size and dimension standards outlined by Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code for the underlying R-1B½ (Single-family Residential with a half-acre minimum size) zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposal is in conformance with Planning Commission Policy PCP-1-74 since the resultant parcels do not exceed the established maximum length to width ratios; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 9.32.050 of the Victorville Municipal Code the suspension of street improvements approximately along the northern half of the site as approved by the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020 will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to install the remainder of unfinished right-of- way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Section 16-4.08.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code the required relocation of overhead utility lines underground approximately along the northern half of the site in association with this tentative parcel map is unreasonable given that said improvements have been suspended in association with the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020, which was found to not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, since no development is proposed in this area and future development will be required to relocate the subject utility lines underground; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will have no adverse effect upon abutting properties due to: conformance with applicable Title 16 standards as proposed; and the resultant parcels size, which maintains conformance with Title 16 standards; and
P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that this land division is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan as no land use designations will be divided with the approval and ultimate recordation of the proposed parcel map; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 16-4.01.020 of the Victorville Municipal Code, that the Tentative Parcel Map portion of Case No. PLAN21-00020 to allow for the subdivision of a single parcel into three separate parcels on a partially developed site zoned R-1B½ (Single-family residential with a half-acre minimum size) on the hereinabove described property be granted the applicant subject to the following conditions of approval:

Planning Conditions:

1. The proposed subdivision shall comply with all applicable development standards of Title 16 of the City of Victorville Municipal Code, as well as the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.

2. The final map shall be in substantial conformance with the tentative map submitted as part of this application, unless modification is required to comply with Title 16 of the City of Victorville Municipal Code and/or conditions of approval.

3. The final map shall include easements for site access in accordance with Victorville Municipal Code and emergency access standards to Lots 1 & 2 via the paved primary and secondary access points to Lot 3, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and the City Engineer.

Alternately, the applicant/developer may memorialize access to Lots 1 & 2 via Lot 3 by other means such as a reciprocal access agreement, executed covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other means, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the final map.

4. Street improvements (e.g. pavement widening, installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) and the relocation of above ground utility lines underground shall only be required along the entire sites southerly frontage at Stoddard Wells Road, or approximately from the northern boundary of Tentative Parcel Map Lot 1 to the southern boundary of Tentative Parcel Map Lot 3, as indicated in the subject Planning Commission Staff Report “Attachment H”, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator and City Engineer prior final map recordation and the issuance of a building or encroachment permit.

5. The final map shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or his designee prior to recordation.

6. The City of Victorville’s name shall not be used in any Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) associated with this parcel map to which it is not a party.

P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

7. 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.

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

Engineering Conditions:

9. The subdivider shall obtain a Parcel Map Number from the San Bernardino County. The Parcel Map shall address the following:
i. The vacation of the excess right-of-way for Stoddard Wells Road. ii. All required lot mergers, lot-line adjustments, and/or the creation of new parcels.

10. The subdivider shall prepare and file with the City, a parcel map in accordance with the requirements of Subdivision Map Act per its latest amendment, and all applicable provisions of Title 16 and Tile 17 of the Victorville Municipal Code.

11. The parcel map shall be based upon a recent field survey made in conformity with the Land Surveyor’s Act.

12. The subdivider shall comply with all applicable requirements and provisions of Title 16 and Title 17 of the Victorville Municipal Code, and the Subdivision Map Act.

13. The subdivision map shall show any easements of record within the subdivision boundary and annotate said easements as required by the City.

14. Any easements required for public utilities, city owned sewer, and/or drainage facilities shall be dedicated on the parcel map.

15. All improvements along the frontages of the subject properties shall be constructed as required by Sections 16-4.08.010, 16-4.08.020, 16-4.08.030, and 16-4.08.040, of the Victorville Municipal Code in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements of the City of Victorville and the City Engineer. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the fulfillment of the construction requirements shall not be required until the time a permit or other grant of approval for development of any or all parcels created by this subdivision is issued by the City of Victorville.

The owners of the land being subdivided shall acknowledge the requirement of improvements by statement on the parcel map. Said improvements include but are not limited to:
(a) Street grading, installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks, provisions for drainage and construction of drainage structures necessary to the proper use and drainage of the streets and/or to the public safety, convenience and protection of property; (b) Paving of streets, paths and alleys as required;
(c) Provision for a water system with mains of sufficient size and having a sufficient number of outlets to furnish adequate potable water supply to each lot of the subdivision in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Improvements P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

with sufficient fire hydrants, gated connections and appurtenances to provide adequate fire protection in accordance with the standard specifications; (d) Sanitary sewer facilities to enable connections for each lot to a sewage system approved by the City;
(e) Installation of street lighting system;
(f) Installation of street signs as required;
(g) Installation of a system of monuments conforming to this title and as approved by the City;
(h) Installation of electric utility service facilities to each lot within the subdivision; (i) Installation of communication service facilities (telephone) to each lot within the subdivision;
(j) Installation of natural gas service facilities to each lot within the subdivision; (k) Installation of cable television service for every CATV franchise authorized by the City to serve the subdivision to each residential parcel in the subdivision pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.08.040 (b). All costs associated with such installations and equipment shall be the responsibility of any franchised cable television franchisee. (l) Subdivider shall relocate or cause to be relocated all existing utility facilities required to be relocated as a result of the construction of improvements.

16. Prior to the acceptance for recordation of the parcel map, the subdivider shall enter into an Improvement Agreement as required by Section 16-4.08.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code and Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act for the completion of any improvements as set forth in Section 16-4.09.010 that have not been completed. Said agreement shall be secured by one of the forms specified by Section 17.64.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code.

17. The subdivider shall monument or reference at least one exterior boundary line of the land being subdivided before the map is recorded, and shall furnish to the City a security guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting monuments not in place at the time the map is recorded.

18. Pursuant to Section 17.76.010 of the Victorville Municipal Code, prior to the filing of any final map or parcel map, the subdivider shall pay or cause to be paid any fees (assessments) for defraying the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters from local or neighborhood drainage areas, or sanitary sewer facilities for local sanitary sewer areas established pursuant to Section 66483 of the Government Code.

19. The subdivider’s surveyor or engineer shall comply with Section 8771 (b) of the Business and Professions Code (Land Surveyors Act), including the filing of a corner record, regarding the preservation of the location of existing monuments that may be destroyed as a result of construction for this subdivision.

20. The subdivider shall submit an initial and final digital AutoCAD copy of the map.

21. The subdivider shall provide the City with a copy of the recorded map on reproducible polyester based film (mylar).

Fire Conditions:

22. Shall comply with all 2019 Building and Fire Code requirements based on occupancy classification.

P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

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

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

25. Paved access from 2 points shall be required for completion and occupancy. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction commencement.

26. Interior/exterior Fire Department access roadways/fire lanes shall be required per Fire Department Standard. Fire Department access roadways providing access to the buildings in this project shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide and shall be directly adjacent to 2 sides of the building. If gates, installed must comply with Fire Department Standards.

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

28. Provide a preliminary on-site fire protection plan which indicates the location of all required fire protection appliances (FDC’s, PIV’s, RP’s, hydrants, etc.) Required appliances shall be unobstructed by fencing, storage containers, parked vehicles, etc.

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

30. Required fire flow for this project is 2,250gpm @ 20psi for 3 hours duration at furthest remote hydrant. Contact Water Department to assure availability of required fire flow.

31. Fire Department access roadways greater than 150’ in length shall require approved turnarounds per Fire Department Standard. Any street exceeding 600; will require secondary access.

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

33. 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.

34. Street Addressing for Commercial, Condominiums and Industrial Buildings a. The street address shall be posted with a minimum of twelve (12) inch in height numbers with a one (1) inch stroke, visible from the street of the corresponding address. During the hours of darkness, they shall be electrically illuminated either externally or internally. b. Posted numbers shall contrast with their background and be legible from the street of the corresponding address prior to occupancy.
c. Where building setbacks exceed one hundred (100) feet from roadway, additional non- illuminated contrasting numbers twelve (12) inch in height with a one (1) inch stroke, shall be displayed at property access entrance on a permanent monument.

P-21-048 – PLAN21-00020 December 8, 2021

d. Commercial/Industrial buildings - Secondary or rear entrance doors shall be marked with unit designators with a minimum of four (4) inch high and 3/8-inch stroke numbers/letters. e. In multifamily complex there shall be positioned at each entrance of the complex, an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex showing the location of fire hydrants, egress/ingress, building and unit designators within the complex f. Where interior buildings exist, completely detached from roadway circulation, illuminated or reflector signs shall be posted along walkway entrances from road circulation points, indicating interior buildings that take access from that particular path. 1) Each individual unit/building within the complex shall display a prominent identification letter, not less than six (6) inches in height and on-half (1/2) inch stroke, which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic. During the hours of darkness, these letters shall be internally or externally electrically illuminated. g. Each individual unit shall have a number/letter with the first digit indicating floor level, not less than four (4) inches in height and one-half (1/2) inch stroke.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT D

SITE PLAN
05/26/2021HSMGA1.0.01 TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA

TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CACOLORED SITE PLAN 12/15/2020HSMGA1.0.12

GUEST ROOM 5
GUEST ROOM 6
GUEST ROOM 8

BOILER ROOM

KITCHEN
GUEST ROOM 4
GUEST ROOM 2

LANGER HALL
UP
GUEST ROOM 7
UP
UP

RESTROOM

RESTROOM
GUEST ROOM 3

RESTROOMRESTROOM

RESTROOMRESTROOM

REST ROOMMEN RACKSHOERACKSHOE LOBBY

LANDSCAPE
UPROOM
ROOM

ROOM ROOM
ROOM

RESTROOM

RESTROOM
ELEV.

UP

REST ROOMWOMENCLOSET

ELECTRICAL ROOM

STANDINGSHOWERSTANDINGSHOWERSTANDINGSHOWER

STANDINGSHOWERSTANDINGSHOWERSTANDINGSHOWER
GUEST ROOM 1
(FOUNTAIN)

ELECTRICAL

FIRE RISER ROOM SWITCHGEAR
SCALE:FIRST FLOOR PLAN- 1/8" = 1'-0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
12/15/2020HSMGA2.0.03 TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA
SCALE:FIRST FLOOR PLAN- 1/8" = 1'-0"

COLORED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
12/15/2020HSMGA2.0.14 TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA

OPEN TERRACE OPEN TERRACE
CLASS ROOM 10
CLASS ROOM 9
CLASS ROOM 8
CLASS ROOM 7
CLASS ROOM 5
CLASS ROOM 4
CLASS ROOM 3
CLASS ROOM 2

SITTING AREA
ROOM

RAILING
CLASS ROOM 6 CLASS ROOM 1

DN OPEN TO BELOWDN

LITERATURE STORAGE

PARSADDISTRIBUTION
(TILE)

PODIUM(AREA FOR PRAYER)SINGHASAN
(TILE)
(N.I.C.)
(N.I.C.)(N.I.C.)

SITTING AREADARBARHALL DARBARHALL
ELEV.

LOW ROOF
ROOM

KEERTAN
2472 S.F.2472 S.F.

SCALE:SECOND FLOOR PLAN- 1/8" = 1'-0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
12/15/2020HSMGA2.1.05 TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA
SCALE:SECOND FLOOR PLAN- 1/8" = 1'-0"

COLORED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
12/15/2020HSMGA2.1.16 TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA

TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CAEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 08/26/2021HSMGA3.0.07

TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CAEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 08/26/2021HSMGA3.1.08
KEY NOTES:

TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA

TITLEPROJECT
DWG. BY:DATE:JOB :

SHEET REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLCFolsom, CA 956301024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046 OF 11
19-50 SIKH TEMPLE-------VICTOR VILLE, CA

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT E

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT F

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT G

Date: September 2, 2021

From: Gurudwara Prabh Milne Ka Chao, Inc
16272 Crown Valley Dr.

Apple Valley CA 92307

To, Planning Commission.

City of Victorville,
14343 Civic Dr,
Victorville, CA 92392

Case No.: PSUB20-00055

Good Morning Alex Jauregui,

Regarding Item no.06:

This project is for people of this planet to get connected with God and have a peaceful and successful life. All the teachings are as per "Sikh faith- Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji" (Bible version), where meditation is the prime subject that leads to complete peace of MIND and connected with GOD via his "WORD (internal divine music) Accordingly, people become kind and serve others so that others can also have similar peaceful and successful life. That how temples/churches (Gurudwara) comes in existence.

Our programs as follows

A)
Sundays : 8am to 3pm - under 100 people

Saturdays: Some special occasion program. Under 10 out of 52 wks.

Again under 100 people.

Monday to Friday: At random Under 10 visitors.

B)
There will be priest/ volunteers living in the existing 2-houses on the property (4 - 8 people)

C)
Hymns from "Holy Scripture" will be sung in main hall and their explanation in detail, how to get connected with Supreme GOD.

D)
No overnight stays in new proposed Temple building.

The rooms on first floor are to be considered as Cry rooms like in church where elders and small children can rest.

E)
Food preparation done on Sundays, All are invited for free food and eat on ground floor. It doesn't matter if a person is homeless or a millionaire. Our Guru taught us all humans are same (GOD's children). Come join together every Sunday that leads to better community.

F)
Panjabi Language will be taught to our youngsters so that they can read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Holy scripture/Bible) to follow "Way to peaceful and successful life"

G)
Playing of musical instruments will also be taught in classrooms on 2nd floor.

H)
Volunteer Physician MD will visit and offer free services on Sundays only.

I)
Under pandemic situation, volunteers will cook and deliver food as service to humanity as done in past by similar Sikh faith institutions all over the world.

Thanks and Regards,

Gurdeep Singh
President
GPMKC Inc.
16272 Crown Valley Dr.

Apple Valley, Ca 92307
(516)707-2115

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT H

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT I

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT J

1 Alex Jauregui
From: Alex Jauregui
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:25 PM
To: Gurdeep Singh; Nancy Jaswal; Art Bishop
Cc: Scott Webb
Subject: RE: PLAN21-00020
Good Afternoon Gurdeep,

Thank you for sending over your position on the Planning Commission Policy on suspension allowances with regard to your project. I would like to clarify that City Staff does not make the final determination on the allowances provided by the Planning Commission Policy, as it ultimately is a guide that the Planning Commission uses to grant improvement suspensions. The Planning Commission will determine their interpretation of the Policy and what, if any, suspensions will be granted. That being said, Staff’s interpretation is as noted in the incomplete letter. Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of the additional items noted in the incomplete letter and I can schedule a time to discuss accordingly. Thanks.

From: Gurdeep Singh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 10:24 AM
To: Alex Jauregui <[email protected]>; Nancy Jaswal <[email protected]>; Art Bishop <[email protected]>
Subject: PLAN21-00020

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Mr. Alex Jauregui,

Before you read below, PLEASE click and watch this... DURING COVID PANDAMIC APRIL 2020, "Riverside Sikh Temple"

Sikh Community Gives Out Thousands of Free Meals to Those in Need | NowThis

2 To help protect
your privacy,
Microsoft Office
prevented
automatic
download of this
picture from the
Internet.

Sikh Community Gives Out Thousands of Free
Meals to Those in Need | NowThis

I reviewed your response to our above application.

We can't consider this project on vacant and raw land and deny the suspension of road development.

It is totally wrong. Here are the reasons for your knowledge.

1)There are two active residential houses, a barn on the property. 2) There are existing water and sewer and electric connections to these houses and bills are being paid regularly.
3) We pay property taxes in addition.

This property is considered under "Scattered Single Family Residential" under the resolution P-09-036.

a) because there are only 2 more houses on east side of stoddard wells rd. within stretch of 1.5 miles (Scattered)

b) There is BIG CHANGE or Intensification OF USE. (improvements are more than $20,000). Under 4th column 4th row of resolution

This determines and confirms the suspension of road improvement BECAUSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES HAVE NOT DEVELOPED THE ROAD.

Respectfully submitted, The Staff can not consider it as VACANT RAW LAND. I'm requesting to grant the suspension without wasting more time and energy.

As I have explained earlier that this GODLY MISSION project is by the volunteers of "Sikh Community" and for HUMANITY to create peace in our society via MEDITATION and love at no cost to anyone.

The sooner we build, the better it is. So people can be stress free upon learning Meditation and spread love not hatred. Sikh temples are famous for Langer (free food) on Sunday services to all attendees.

Believe you me sir, when time comes to widen the road, it will happen. GOD is great. Sikh community is growing in high desert.

Help me by getting this project started.

GOD BLESS ALL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STAFF.

HELP, HELP, HELP, HELP........................................ HELP......!

3 Gurdeep Singh
(516)707-2115

Here is one more link and there are many many more in entire world.

Sikh temple breaks down cultural barriers

To help protect
your privacy,
Microsoft Office
prevented
automatic
download of this
picture from the
Internet. Sikh temple breaks down cultural barriers

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT K

1 April 20, 2021 Job No. GPMK0000-0001

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Gurdeep Singh
Gurudwara Prabh Milne Ka Chao, Inc,
16272 Crown Valley Drive
Apple Valley, CA. 92307

From: James M. Daisa, PE
Senior Transportation Project Manager

RE: Traffic Study Memorandum
Meditation Temple
Stoddard Wells Road, Victorville, California

The purpose of this memorandum is to address the anticipated project trip generation and recommended traffic improvements for the proposed Meditation Temple in the City of Victorville.

The proposed project consists of a 2-story 28,690 SF Meditation Temple. The project site is proposed to be located east on the east side of Stoddard Wells Road south of Highway 18, as illustrated in Exhibit A. Exhibit B illustrates the proposed Site Plan.

A. Existing Conditions
Currently the project site is vacant and undeveloped land. The proposed project is bounded to the north and east by vacant and undeveloped land, to the southwest by existing an existing Mobile Home Park development, and west by Stoddard Wells Road and vacant and undeveloped land.

Stoddard Wells Road is a two-lane roadway that terminates approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site at Highway 18. Stoddard Wells provides direct access to the project site and existing residential development and provides a secondary access to Highway 18 from the I-15 Freeway.

The speed limit on Stoddard Wells Road is posted at 50 mph, and the roadway is designated as an Arterial on the City of Victorville Circulation Element of the General Plan.

The proposed project driveway for the project onto Stoddard Wells Road is located at an existing private driveway, that is currently side street stop controlled.

2 B. Project Trip Generation
Table A summarizes the estimated trip generation for the proposed project for the weekday AM peak hour (between 7-9 AM) and weekday PM peak hour (between 4-6 PM). The trip generation rates for Church (ITE Land Use Category 560) were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

Table A: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
1 Meditation Temple Land Use Category (ITE 560)
Rates (Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA) 28,690 6.95 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.22 0.27 0.49 Trips 200 6 4 10 6 8 14
Source: “Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers”, 10th Edition As presented, the trips generated by the project is estimated to be 200 daily, 10 weekday AM peak hour and 14 weekday PM peak hour trips.

C. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trips were distributed by direction towards major commute routes and concentrations of commercial land uses and employment centers. Based on the distribution pattern project trips were assigned to the streets that serve the project.

The anticipated regional project trip distribution is 25% north, 35% west, and 40% west. The distribution percentage of the project trips and project trips are illustrated in Exhibit C.

Based on the anticipated trip distribution it is estimated that the left turn movement volume from the project driveway to Stoddard Wells Road will 3 and 6 vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours respectively, and the left turn movement will be 2 vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours.

These low volumes are not such that would cause any negative traffic impacts, nor any traffic mitigations other than the stop-controlled movement for the driveway approach at Stoddard Wells Road.

D. Intersection Sight Distance Analysis
As defined in the 2020 California Highway Design Manual (HDM) Topic 405 – Intersection Design Standards Section 405.1 Sight Distance, Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) is calculated for a left and right turn from a stopped vehicle on the project driveway approach to Stoddard Wells Road.

The posted speed limit on Stoddard Wells Road is 50 mph. The roadway is a 2-lane divided roadway. The sight distance triangles are calculated to meet the minimum clear sightline required for a driver stopped at project driveway to make a safe left or right turn onto Stoddard Wells Road.

Sight distance is calculated for trucks and passenger vehicles with the longest distance considered for design purposes. The sight distance formula and calculated distances are shown below

3 𝐼𝑆𝐷 = 1.47 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑔1
Vmajor = 50 mph
Left turn from stop2 Right turn from stop2
tg_combination truck = (11.5)3 tg_combination truck = (10.5)3 tg_passenger car = (7.5)3 tg_passenger car = (6.5)3
ISDcombination truck = 1.47 (50) (11.5) ISDcombination truck = 1.47 (50) (10.5) ISDcombination truck = 845.25 ≈ 850 ft ISDcombination truck =771.75 ≈ 775 ft ISD passenger car = 1.47 (50) (7.5) ISD passenger car = 1.47 (50) (6.5) ISD passenger car =551.25 ≈ 555 ft ISD passenger car = 477.75 ≈ 480 ft

1 As defined by California HDM Topic 405.1.2
2 As defined by California HDM Topic 405.1.A
3 As defined by California HDM Topic 405.1.B

E. Project Specific Improvements and Mitigation Measures To accommodate the southbound left turn movement from Stoddard Wells Road to the project driveway, it is recommended that a 150-foot southbound left turn pocket be provided, as illustrated on Exhibit D. This left turn pocket is recommended as a safety improvement for the northbound traffic movements to assure that the northbound left turn movements be made outside of the northbound trough lane to reduce the potential for rear end crashes. It should be noted that the recommended left turn lane is a safety improvement and is not needed for traffic capacity enhancements.

The proposed project driveway, which is located at an existing driveway on Stoddard Wells Road, is located on the outside of an existing curve on Stoddard Wells Road. The proposed northbound left turn pocket is proposed to be located in the existing southbound lane. To accommodate the left turn pocket, the northbound through lane will transition into the existing northwesterly curve around the turn pocket, as illustrated on the geometric plan. The transitions for the relocated northbound trough lane can be accommodated in the modification to the northbound curve as illustrated in Exhibit E.

Exhibit E also illustrates the required sight distance triangles for the proposed driveway on Stoddard Wells Road. As presented, because the proposed driveway is located on the outside of the curve on Stoddard Wells Road, a motorist exiting the driveway onto Stoddard Wells Road with a right or left turn, has adequate sight distances to make the turns.

4 Stoddard Wells Road is identified as an Arterial in the City of Victorville Circulation Plan of the General Plan. This roadway designation requires a curb width of 38-feet, and a Right-of-way width of 49-feet from centerline. The City of Victorville typically requires the construction of the curb and gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the project frontage. Stoddard Wells Road is currently a two-lane (one lane in each direction) roadway from Highway 18 northerly to the I-15 Freeway interchange, with the exception that at the existing Mobile Home Park southwesterly of the project site, where there is an existing northbound left turn lane. No curb and gutter improvements per the Arterial street standards have been constructed in this segment, nor does the City have any plans to widen the roadway to four lanes. As presented in this memorandum the anticipated traffic volumes to be generated by the project do not warrant the full widening on Stoddard Wells Road.

The construction of the southbound left turn lane would mitigate the traffic safety impacts for the project.

We are recommending that the City grant a waiver for the construction of the full curb and gutter improvements along the project frontage for this project. Not only are the full roadway improvements not needed, based on topographic constraints, the construction of the full street improvements could require extensive earthwork, and could also require the construction of high retaining walls, which would be cost prohibitive for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our traffic recommendations for the project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.

Attachments

1. Exhibit A – Vicinity Map

2. Exhibit B – Site Plan

3. Exhibit C – Project Trip Distribution and Project Trips

4. Exhibit D – Recommended Stoddard Wells Road Driveway Geometrics

5. Exhibit E - Conceptual Geometric Plan and Sight Distance Triangles EXHIBIT A: VICINITY MAP
Drawing Name: P:\G\GPMK00000001\0400CAD\TT\EXHIBITS\Traffic Memorandum\Exhibit A.dwgLast Opened: Apr 15, 2021 - 6:49am by: Tnm HAPPY TRAILS HWY (HWY 18)

PROJECT SITE

STODDARD WELLS RD

PROJECTDRIVEWAY
"D" ST

EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN
Drawing Name: P:\G\GPMK00000001\0400CAD\TT\EXHIBITS\Traffic Memorandum\Exhibit B.dwgLast Opened: Apr 07, 2021 - 1:36pm by: Tnm

EXHIBIT C: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Drawing Name: P:\G\GPMK00000001\0400CAD\TT\EXHIBITS\Traffic Memorandum\Exhibit C.dwgLast Opened: Apr 15, 2021 - 6:50am by: Tnm 35% LEGEND - REGIONAL PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTIONXX%
40%HAPPY TRAILS HWY (HWY 18)

PROJECT SITE

STODDARD WELLS RD

PROJECTDRIVEWAY
"D" ST
25%
AND PROJECT TRIPS- STOP CONTROLLED APPROACH - AM/PM PROJECT TRIPXX/XX- 6 IN / 8 OUTPM PEAK PERIOD- 6 IN / 4 OUTPROJECT TRIPSAM PEAK PERIOD STODDARD WELLS RD/PROJECT DRIVEWAY1/22/23/64/4

30.0000

STODDARD WELLS ROAD

PROPOSEDSITE
Drawing Name: P:\G\GPMK00000001\0400CAD\TT\EXHIBITS\Traffic Memorandum\Exhibit D.dwgLast Opened: Apr 20, 2021 - 10:59am by: Kjch EXHIBIT D: RECOMMENDED STODDARD WELLSROAD DRIVEWAY TRIANGLES

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W

EXISTINGR/W

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W

FUTURECURB & GUTTER

PROPOSEDR/W

FUTURECURB & GUTTER

FUTURECOMMERCIALDRIVEWAY
R25.0000

30.0000

STODDARD WELLS ROAD

PROPOSED SITE

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W
Drawing Name: P:\G\GPMK00000001\0400CAD\TT\EXHIBITS\Traffic Memorandum\Exhibit E.dwgLast Opened: Apr 20, 2021 - 11:02am by: Kjch EXHIBIT E: CONCEPTUAL GEOMETRIC PLANAND SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES

EXISTINGR/W

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W

FUTURECURB & GUTTER

PROPOSEDR/W

FUTURECURB & GUTTER
R25.0000

30.0000

PROPOSEDR/WFUTURECURB & GUTTER
4/19/2021Phone: 760.524.9100Apple Valley California 92307-230018484 Outer Highway 18 N Suite 225® 10050050feetscale1"= 50'

STODDARD WELLS ROAD

EXISTINGR/W

PROPOSED SITE

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/WFUTURECURB & GUTTER

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W

30.0000
CONCEPTUAL GEOMETRIC PLAN15975 STODDARD WELLS ROADVICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIAPhone: 760.524.9100Apple Valley California 92307-230018484 Outer Highway 18 N Suite 22510050050feetscale1"= 50'STODDARD WELLS ROAD

PROPOSEDR/WFUTURECURB & GUTTEREXISTINGR/W

PROPOSED SITE

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/WFUTURECURB & GUTTERFUTURECOMMERCIALDRIVEWAY

EXISTING/PROPOSED R/W

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT L

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

VICTORVILLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN: 0473-182-03

Prepared for:

Ace Design & Construction, Inc.
1024 Iron Point Road
Folsom, CA 95630

Prepared by:

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017

Principal Investigators:

Ryan Hunter, Environmental Scientist/Biologist
Lisa Cardoso, Wildlife Biologist
Jessica Hensley, Environmental Scientist

Project: #2021-218

Updated October 28, 2021

TITLE PAGE

Date Report Updated: October 28, 2021

Date Field Work Completed: September 15, 2021

Report Title: General Biological Resources Assessment

Project Location: Victorville, California
APN: 0473-182-03

Prepared for: Ace Design & Construction, Inc.
1024 Iron Point Road
Folsom, CA 95630

Principal Investigators: Ryan Hunter, Environmental Scientist/Biologist Lisa Cardoso, Wildlife Biologist
Jessica Hensley, Environmental Scientist
Randall Arnold, Senior Biologist

Contact Information: Randall C. Arnold, Jr.

RCA Associates, Inc.
15555 Main Street, #D4-235
Hesperia, California 92345
(760) 596-0017
[email protected]

www.rcaassociatesllc.com

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................................ 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 2

3.0 METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................................... 4

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH .................................................................................................... 6

5.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 11

5.1 General Biological Resources 11

5.2 Federal and State Listed Species 12

5.3 Wildlife Species of Special Concern 14

5.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat 15

5.5 Protected Plants 15

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................. 16

6.1 General Biological Resources 16

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern 16

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 17

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 18 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix A – Tables and Figures

REGULATORY CONTEXT

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 OCTOBER 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Biological surveys were conducted on a 12.27- acre parcel (APN: 0473 -182-03) located north of Highway 18 and bordered by Stoddard Wells Rd. to the East, in the city of Victorville, California (Figures 1 and 2). The property site is specifically located on the NW ¼ of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 5 North, Range 4 West in the USGS Victorville 7.5- minute California quadrangle.

The property is located in an area zoned for single family residential (R-1B1/2).

As part of the environmental process, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) data sources were reviewed. Following the data review, surveys were performed on the site on September 15, 2021, during which the biological resources on the site and in the surrounding areas were documented by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc.

As part of the surveys, the property and adjoining areas were evaluated for the presence of native habitats which may support popul ations of sensitive wildlife species. The property was also evaluated for the presence of sensitive habitats including wetlands, vernal pools, riparian habitats, and jurisdictional areas.

Focused surveys were also conducted for both desert tortoise, burrowing owl, Joshua trees, and a habitat assessment was performed for the Mohave ground squirrel. Based on data from USFWS, CDFW, and a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2021). Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references: Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2000) and Whitaker (1980).

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 OCTOBER 2021

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property is approximately 12.27-acres in size and located north of Highway 18 and bordered by Stoddard Wells Rd. to the East, in the city of Victorville, California (Township 5 North, Range 4 West, Section 10, USGS Vic torville, California Quadrangle, 1956) (Figures 1 and 2). Vacant land borders the property in all directions with a mobile home park located to the southwest (Figure 2).

The site is relatively flat, approximately 840 meters above sea level, and shows s igns of having been previously graded. This observation is based on the lack of vegetation and current conditions notated on site during the September 15, 2021 field investigations. The property consists of Cajon Gravelly Sand, which has a 2- 15 percent s lope, and Victorville Sandy Loam. The project site's soil makeup is very well drainage and has a high -water capacity, with no frequency of flooding, and low available water supply. The site has been previously cleared of all vegetation with some native sp ecies remaining along the border, these species included creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata), Nevada jointfir ( Ephedra nevadensis ), rubber rabbitbrush ( Ericameria nauseosa), Mojave yucca ( Yucca schidigera), and four -winged saltbush ( Atriplex canescens). Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various plant species observed during the surveys.

The site is not expected to support a variety of wildlife species due to the lack of vegetation and no mammals were observed during the field investigations. Mammals which are expected to inhabit the site but were not observed include black- tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontails ( Sylvilagus audubonii ), and California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beecheyi ).

Coyotes (Canis latrans), which are very common in the region, are expected to utilize the site during hunting activities.

Birds identified by sight or sound included ravens ( Corvus corax ), house finch ( Carpodacus mexicanus), red -tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ), and mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura).

Section 5.0 provides a more detailed discussion of the various species observed during the surveys.

No reptiles were observed during the September 15, 2021 field investigations, although common reptiles that are expected to inhabit the site include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis),

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 OCTOBER 2021

western whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus occidentalis ) and common side -blotched lizard ( Uta stansburiana). Table 2 provides a compendium of wildlife species.

No potential jurisdictional channels are located within the projects projected scope of work and no additional surveys will be required for jurisdictional areas.

In addition, no sensitive habitats (e.g., sensitive species critical habitats, etc.) have been documented in the immediate area according to the CNDDB (2021) and none were observed during the field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4 OCTOBER 2021

3.0 METHODOLOGIES
General biological surveys were conducted on September 15, 2021, during which biologists from RCA Associates, Inc. initially walked meandering transects throughout the property site. During the surveys, data was collected on the plant and animal species present on the site. All plants and animals detected during the surveys were recorded and are provided in Tables 1 & 2 (Appendix A). The property was also evaluated for the presence of habitats which might support sensitive species. Scientific nomenclature for this report is based on the following references: Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), Stebbins (2003), Sibley (2000) and Whitaker (1980). 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. Weather conditions consisted of wind speeds of 0 to 5 mph, temperatures in the mid 80’s to low 90’s (°F) (PM) with 0% cloud cover skies. The applicable methodologies are summarized below.

General Plant and Animal Surveys: Meandering transects were walked throughout the site and in the surrounding area (i.e., the zone of influence) at a pace that allowed for careful documentation of the plant and animal present on the site. All plants observed were identified in the field and wildlife was identified through visual observations and/or by vocalizations. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provides a comprehensive compendium of the various plant and animal species observed during the field investigations.

Desert Tortoise: A habitat assessment was conducted on September 15, 2021 for the desert tortoises and a survey was also performed for the presence of any potential tortoise burrows by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc. Ten- meter, parallel belt transects were walked in a north - south direction until the entire property had been checked for any tortoise sign (burrows, tracks, scats, etc.). Surveys in the zone of influence (ZOI) were also conducted in the areas directly adjacent to the property where accessible. Comprehensive fiel d investigations were conducted throughout the site during the biological surveys and no tortoises or tortoise signs were identified on the site or zone of influence.

During the biological survey, all transects were walked at a pace that allowed careful observations along the transect routes and in the immediate vicinity. Field notes were recorded regarding native

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5 OCTOBER 2021

plant assemblages, wildlife sign, and human effects in order to determine the presence or absence of suitable tortoise foraging habitat. If tortoises are found to inhabit the site in the future, a Section 10(a) incidental take permit from the USFWS and a Section 2081 permit from CDFW will be required to mitigate impacts to the species.

Burrowing Owl: A habitat assessment (Phase 1) was conducted for the burrowing owl in conjunction with the general biological surveys to determine if the site supports suitable habitat for the species on September 15, 2021. Following completion of the habitat assessment, it was determined that the site does not support s minimal suitable habitat for the burrowing owl . This opinion was based on the lack of burrows and vegetation observed within the site boundaries and a lack of burrows in the zone of influence. As part of the burrowing owl survey, meandering transects were walked throughout the site during which any suitable burrows were evaluated for owls and owl sign. Burrowing owls typically utilize burrows which have been excavated by other animals (squirrels, coyotes, foxes, dogs, etc.) with a minimum four -inch burrow entrance, since owls rarely dig their own burrows. CDFW protocol also requires surveys be conducted in the surrounding area out to a distance of about 500 feet; therefore, the zone of influence (ZOI) surveys were performed in the area surrounding the site where accessible. If present on a site, CDFW typically requires the owls to be passively relocated during the non-breeding season.

Mohave Ground Squirrel: A habitat assessment was performed for the Mohave ground squirrel as per CDFW protocol including an analysis of the on-site habitat, evaluation of local populations, and assessment of connectivity with habitats in the surrounding area which might support populations of the Mohave ground squirrel. Due to the low population levels and no recent observations in this area of the Mojave Desert, it is the opinion of RCA Associates, Inc. that the likelihood of a Mohave ground squirrel occurring on the proposed project site is extremely low.

CDFW may choose to conduct a live -trapping survey to defini tively determine the presence/absence of Mohave ground squirrels.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 OCTOBER 2021

4.0 LITERATURE SEARCH
As part of the environmental process, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2021) was performed. Based on this review, it was determined that 32 special status species, twenty-six wildlife and six plant species, have been documented within the Victorville quad of the property. The following tables provide data on each special status species which has been documented in the area.

Table 4-1: Federal and State Listed Species and State Species of Special Concern.

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of special concern; CNPS = California Native Plant Society; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Data Base

NAME STATUS HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE/

ABSENCE ON PROPERTY
PLANTS
Within Victorville Quadrangle
White pygmy poppy
(Canbya candida)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 4.2
Creosote bush scrub and
Joshua tree woodlands
on sandy soils
The site does not support suitable
habitat for the species; and no
White pygmy poppies were
observed during field surveys.

Mojave monkeyflower
(Diplacus mohavensis)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Joshua tree woodlands
and creosote bush scrub,
gravelly slopes and
washes.

The does not support suitable
habitat, and no Mojave
monkeyflowers were observed.

Booth’s evening-primrose
(Eremothera boothii ssp.
boothii)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 2B.3
Joshua tree woodlands
and creosote bush scrub,
in loose soil and open
areas
The does not support suitable
habitat, and no Booth’s evening-
primrose were observed.

Beaver Dam breadroot
(Pediomelum castoreum)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Sandy soils alongside
roads and sandy washes.

The does not support suitable
habitat, and no Beaver Dam
breadroot were observed.

San Bernardino aster
(Symphyotrichum
defoliatum)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Grassland and meadow
habitats, and can occur
in disturbed areas.

The does not support suitable
habitat, and no San Bernardino
aster were observed.

Southern mountains skullcap
(Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.
austromontana)
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.2
Usually occurs in areas
where there are
wetlands.

The does not support suitable
habitat, and no Southern mountains
skullcap were observed.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7 OCTOBER 2021

Notes:

Status abbreviations:

CNPS List 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CNPS List 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CNPS List 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common somewhere else CNPS List 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common somewhere else
CNPS List 3: Plants about which more information is needed - a review list CNPS List 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list .1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/ high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/ moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 No very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/ low degree a nd immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
Table 4-2: Special status wildlife and insects documented in the region (Source: CNDDB, 2021) or likely to occur in the region

NAME STATUS HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE/ABSENCE ON

PROPERTY
ANIMAL
Within Victorville Quadrangle
Desert tortoise
(Gopherus agassizii)
Federal: Threatened
State: Threatened
Desert shrub No suitable habitat. No
tortoises observed on-site.

Yellow warbler
(Setophaga petechia)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Dense riparian vegetation. The site does not support suitable habitat for the species and will not
occur on the site.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Open grassland areas where
the owls utilize abandoned
mammal burrows.

Minimal suitable habitat for the
species but no owls or potential
burrows observed. Species is
not expected to occur on site.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)

Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Inhabits open areas of sandy
soils and low vegetation in
valleys, foothills, and semiarid
mountains
Suitable habitat, none observed
on site
Mohave ground squirrel
(Xerospermophilus
mohavensis)
Federal: None
State: Threatened
Desert scrub No suitable habitat for the species.

None observed on site.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8 OCTOBER 2021

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Open country with scattered
shrubs and trees
The site does provide suitable
habitat, however none observed
on site
Cooper’s hawk
(Accipiter cooperii)
Federal: None
State: None
Mature forests, open
woodland, wood edges, river
groves, mixed woods, suburbs
The site does not contain
suitable habitat for the
Cooper’s hawk, none were
observed on site.

Le Conte’s thrasher
(Toxostoma lecontei)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Desert scrub, open washes,
desert shrub habitats, Joshua
tree scrub, common in saltbush
and cholla vegetation
The site has no suitable habitat
for the Le Conte’s thrasher, and
is not expected to occur on the
site.

Mohave tui chub
(Siphateles bicolor
mohavensis)
Federal: Endangered
State: Endangered
CDFW: Fully
protected
Three populations exist at
Soda Springs, China Lake
Naval Weapons Station, and
Camp Cady Wildlife Area
The site does not contain
suitable habitat for the species.

A fully protected species, there
are only three populations
being maintained with the
nearest population in Camp
Cady, with an introducing
population being carried in the
Mojave River. This species will
not occur on site.

Least bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
Federal: Endangered
State: Endangered
CDFW: Near
Threatened
Dense shrubs and small trees
along rivers and streams.

The site has no suitable habitat
for the Least bell’s vireo, and is
not expected to occur on the
site.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
Federal: None
State: Threatened
CDFW: SSC
Lives around marshes and on
farmland.

The site has no suitable habitat
for the Tricolored blackbird,
and is not expected to occur on
the site.

Arroyo toad
(Anaxyrus
californicus)
Federal: Endangered
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Sandy washes, usually
associated with riparian
habitats.

The site has no suitable habitat
for the Arroyo toad, and is not
expected to occur on the site.

Golden Eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: Fully
protected
Grasslands, deserts, and open
country.

The site does provide suitable
habitat, however none observed
on site.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
Federal: None
State: Threatened
Open habitats with mixed
grassland or transition areas
between habitats with
scattered trees.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 9 OCTOBER 2021

Pallid San Diego
pocket mouse
(Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Chaparral and grasslands to
scrub forests and deserts.

The site does provide suitable
habitat, however none observed
on site and the species is not
expected to occur on the site.

Western yellow-
billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
Federal: Threatened
State: Endangered
Occur in large areas of riparian
habitats.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Townsend’s big-
eared bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Large open areas near pine
forests and desert scrub
habitats.

The site does provide suitable
habitat, however none observed
on site and the species is not
expected to occur on the site.

Southwestern willow
flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii
extimus)
Federal: Endangered
State: Endangered
Dense riparian tree and shrub
habitat along swamps and
rivers.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Found in intermittent waters of
small creeks, ponds, irrigation
ditches, and other wetland
habitats.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Victorville
shoulderband
(Helminthoglypta
mohaveana)
Federal: None
State: None

Creosote bush scrub habitat
with rocks.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Yellow-breasted chat
(Icteria virens)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Impenetrable vegetation along
woods edges and riparian
habitats.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus)
Federal: None
State: None

Arid open deserts with habitat
edges.

The site does provide suitable
habitat, however none observed
on site and the species is not
expected to occur on the site.

Mohave River vole
(Microtus
californicus
mahavensis)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Moist areas including
meadows, marshes, and
irrigated pastures.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

Summer tanager
(Piranga rubra)
Federal: None
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Mature riparian cottonwood
forests.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10 OCTOBER 2021

San Emigdio blue
butterfly (Plebulina
emigdionis)
Federal: None
State: None

Montane desert regions. The site has no suitable habitat, and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

California red-legged
frog (Rana draytonii)
Federal: Threatened
State: None
CDFW: SSC
Aquatic habitats including
backwaters of streams, creeks,
marshes, and ponds.

The site has no suitable habitat,
and the species is not expected
to occur on the site.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 11 OCTOBER 2021

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 General Biological Resources
The site has been previously cleared of all vegetation and supports a sparse desert scrub community (Figures 3). Vegetation present on the site included rubber rabbitbrush ( Ericameria nauseosa), Mojave yucca ( Yucca schidigera ), ephedra ( Ephedra nevadensis ), water jacket ( Lycium andersonii), creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata), white bursage ( Ambrosia dumosa), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum ), four- wing saltbush ( Atriplex canescens ), cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum ), brome grasses (Bromus sp.) and fiddleneck (Ansickia tessellata). Table 1 provides a compendium of all plants occurring on the site and/or in the immediate surrounding area.

Birds observed included ravens ( Corvus corax), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), No mammals were observed on sight during the September 15, 2021 survey. Mammals that are expected to occur on the site include black- tailed jackrabbits ( Lepus californicus ), desert cottontails ( Sylvilagus audubonii ), and California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beecheyi ).

Merriam’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriamii) may also occur on the site given their wide - spread distribution in the region. Tables 1 and 2 (Appendix A) provides a compendium of the various plant and animal species identified during the field investigations and those common to the area.

No reptiles were observed on site during the field investigations. Reptiles that are expected to occur on site and occur in the surrounding areas include the western fence lizard ( Sceloporus occidentalis), western whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus tigris) and common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Table 2 provides a compendium of wildlife species observed during the various surveys and those likely to occur in the area.

No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 12 OCTOBER 2021

The following are the listed and special status species that have the ability to occur on the project site. It is not a comprehensive list of all the species in the quad. This information has been taken from the California Natural Diversity Database and is using the most current version.

5.2 Federal and State Listed Species
Ten of the twenty-six species are classified as threatened or endangered federally and or by the state, these species are:

Desert Tortoise: The desert tortoise is a federally and state threatened species that can be found in the Mojave Desert and occupy desert scrubs that may consist of shrub steppe, perennial grasses, Joshua trees, and open scrub areas consisting of creosote bush. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the desert tortoise , although it is also located within the documented tortoise habitat according to CND DB. As per the USFWS desert tortoise protocol, ten me ter transects were walked during the September 15, 2021 survey to observe the site for any desert tortoises or desert tortoise signs (i.e., scat, active burrow, or carcasses). No tortoises or signs were observed on the site. The species is not expected t o move onto the site in the near future based on the absence of any sign, and absence of any recent observations in the immediate area. The survey results are valid for one year as per CDFW and USFWS requirements.

Mohave Ground Squirrel: The Mohave ground squirrel is a state threatened species that occurs within the known distribution. There is no recent observation of Mohave ground squirrels within the area, and it is the opinion of RCA Associates, Inc. that the habitat is not prime Mohave ground squirrel habitat and is very unlikely to support populations of the species based on the following criteria:

1. No recent documented observations in the general region.

2. No connectivity with habitat which may support the species.

Mohave Tui Chub: The Mohave Tui Chub is a federally and state endangered species that is fully protected. The site is located within the documented Victorville quad habitat according to CNDDB (2021). There are only three populations of Mohave tui chub, with a fourth population having been recently introduced to the Mojave river. The site however, does not contain or is not connected to the Mojave River, and no Mohave tui chub will occur on site.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 13 OCTOBER 2021

Swainson’s Hawk: The site is located within documented Swainson’s hawk habitat, a state threatened raptor, according to CNDDB (2021). No hawks were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed due to previous grading of the site. Swainson’s hawks occupy grasslands and breed in trees that are the only ones seen for miles. Swainson’s hawks are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of habitat and prime vegetation.

Tricolored Blackbird: The site is located within documented tricolored blackbird habitat, a state threatened avian species, according to CNDDB (2021). No tricolored blackbirds were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed due to previous grading of the site. Tricolored blackbirds occupy wetland and marsh habitats near creeks and rivers. Tricolored blackbirds are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of habitat and prime vegetation.

Arroyo Toad: The Arroyo toad is a federally endangered amphibian, according to CNDDB (2021). No Arroyo toads were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed on site or in the immediate surrounding area. Arroyo toads occupy wetland and marsh habitats near creeks and rivers. The species is not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable habitat and wetland areas.

Southwestern willow flycatcher: The southwestern willow flycatcher is a state and federally endangered avian species, according to CNDDB (2021). No southwestern willow flycatchers were observed on the property or in the immediate surrounding area during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed on site or in the immediate surrounding area. Southwestern willow flycatchers occupy dense riparian tree and shrub habitat along rivers, ponds, marshes, creeks and other wetland habitats. This species is not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable habitat and wetland areas.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo: The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a state endangered and federally threatened avian species, according to CNDDB (2021). No western yellow-billed cuckoos were observed on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed on site or in the immediate surrounding area. western yellow-billed cuckoos occupy wetland and marsh habitats near creeks and rivers. The species is not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable habitat and wetland areas.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 14 OCTOBER 2021

California red-legged frog: The California red-legged frog is a federally threatened amphibian, according to CNDDB (2021). No California red-legged frogs were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed on site or in the immediate surrounding area.

Arroyo toads occupy wetland and marsh habitats near creeks and rivers. The species is not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable habitat and wetland areas.

Least Bell’s vireo: The least Bell’s vireo is a federally endangered avian species, according to CNDDB (2021). No least Bell’s vireos were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed on site or in the immediate surrounding area. Least Bell’s vireos occupy areas with dense shrubs and small trees along rivers and streams. The species is not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable habitat.

5.3 Wildlife Species of Special Concern
Sensitive Plants: There are six plant species that have been documented in the Victorville quad, the white pygmy poppy, Mojave monkeyflower, Booth’s evening- primrose, Beaver Dam breadroot, San Bernardino aste r, and southern mountains skullcap. The site does not support suitable habitat for the six species listed above due to the property having been previously cleared of all vegetation. These six species occur in areas of Joshua tree woodlands and creosote brush habitats with the exception of the southern mountains skullcap that occurs in wetland areas. None of the above species or their habitats were observed on the site during the September 15, 2021 survey, and are not expected to occur in the foreseeable future. The project is not expected to impact any sensitive plant species.

Sensitive Wildlife: Within the Victorville quad, there are 4 species that are labeled as Species of Special Concern. These species are the burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, coast horned lizard, and yellow warbler. The property does not contain suitable habitat for the yellow warbler, which occupies riparian habitats, and is therefore not expected to occur on the site. The loggerhead shrike and coast horned lizard could potentially occur on the site, but no signs of these three species were observed during the field investigations. The site contains minimal suitable and no suitable burrows for burrowing owls, no owl signs (e.g. whitewash, feathers, castings) were found on the

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 15 OCTOBER 2021

property, and no burrowing owls were observed. It is the professional opinion of RCA Associates, Inc., that there are no owls currently inhabit ing the site and owls are not expected to inhabit the site in the future given the lack of suitable habitat for the species.

5.4 Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitat
No riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, etc.) exist on the site or in the adjacent habitats.

During the field investigations one potential jurisdictional channel was noted to the north east of the property but runs west along the property’s northern boundary until running onto Stoddard Wells Rd. A portion of the m ain channel splits off and runs along the eastern edge of the site in an area that is outside of the projects scope or work as depicted in (Figure 4). It is the opinion of RCA Associates, Inc. that additional surveys will not be required pertaining to jurisdictional waters.

5.5 Protected Plants
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. No Joshua trees were observed on site during the September 5, 2021 field investigations. If Joshua trees are located on the site in the future a Protecte d Plant Preservation Plan or Joshua tree survey will need to be prepared. Any attempt to remove a Joshua tree from its current position will require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP).

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 16 OCTOBER 2021

6.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

6.1 General Biological Resources
Future development of the site will impact the general biological resources present on the site, and most, if not all, of the vegetation will likely be removed during future construction activities.

Wildlife will also be impacted by development activities and those species with limited mobility (i.e., small mammals and reptiles) will experience increases in mortality during the construction phase. However, more mobile species (i.e., birds, large mammals) will be displaced into adjacent areas and will like ly experience minimal impacts. Therefore, loss of about 12.27- acres of previously graded desert vegetation is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on the overall biological resources in the region given the presence of similar habitat throughout the surrounding desert region. The only sensitive habitats (e.g. wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) observed on site was a potential jurisdictional channel located on the eastern boundary of the site. This c hannel is not expected to be d isturbed during future construction activities due to it being outside of the projected construction area shown in Figure 4, Appendix A.

6.2 Federal and State Listed and Species of Special Concern No federal or State- listed species were observed on the site during the field investigations, including the Mohave ground squirrel, Joshua tree, and desert tortoise. In addition, there are no documented observations of the wildlife species either on the site or in the immediate area. Joshua trees occur in the surrounding areas but the site has been cleared of all vegetation and there are no Joshua trees living on site. The site is not expected to support populations of the desert tortoise based on the absence of any tortoise sign (e.g., burrows, scats, tracks, etc.). The probability of the species inhabiting the site is very low.

A pre-construction burrowing owl survey may be required by CDFW to dete rmine if any owls have moved on to the site since the September 15, 2021 surveys. As stated in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the most effective method of completing a pre-construction survey (take avoidance survey) should be performed within 14 days of ground disturbance, followed by a final pre-construction survey within 24 hours of breaking ground.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 17 OCTOBER 2021

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Future development activities are expected to result in the removal of vegetation from the 12.27- acre parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the fact that the site had been previously cleared of any suitable habitat and groundcover for most species. In addition, future development activities are not expected to have any impact on any State or Federal listed or State special status plant or animal species. As discussed above, the site does not support any desert tortoises. The following mitigation measures are recommended:

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 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.

2. If any sensitive species are observed on the property during future activities, CDFW and USFWS (as applicable) should be contacted to discuss specific mitigation measures which may be required for the individual species. CDFW and USFWS are the only agencies which can grant authorization for the “take” of any sensitive species and can approve the implementation of any applicable mitigation measures.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 18 OCTOBER 2021

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin, Bruce G, et. al.
2002. The Jepson Desert Manual. Vascular Plants of Southeastern California.

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bureau of Land Management
January 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan. Vol. 1A.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium
1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game
1990. California Wildlife: Volume 1 (Amphibians and Reptiles), Volume II (Birds), and Volume III (Mammals).

California Department of Fish and Game
2003. Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game
2014. Rarefind 3 Natural Diversity Database. Habitat and Data Analysis Branch.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 2013. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 34 pp.

California Native Plant Society
2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA x + 388 pp.

Ehrlich, P., Dobkin., Wheye, D.

Birder’s Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds.

Simon & Schuster Building Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas. New York, New York 10020.

Hickman, James C.

The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Berkeley, CA. 3
rd Edition. 1996.

Jaeger, Edmund C.
1969. Desert Wild Flowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 321 pp.

Kays, R. W. & Wilson, D. E.

Mammals of North America. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 2002.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 19 OCTOBER 2021

Munz, Philip A.
1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 pp.

Tugel, Arlene J., Woodruff, George A.

Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County California, Mojave River Area.

Sibley, David Allen.

National Audubon Society. The Sibley guide to Birds. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 2000.

Stebbins, Robert C.

A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2003.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2010 Desert Tortoise Survey Protocol.

Whitaker, John O.

The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1980.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 20 OCTOBER 2021

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits, presents the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by Ryan Hunter, Jessica Hensley, and Lisa Cardoso.

I certify that I have not signed a non- disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the project applicant or applicant’s representative and that I have no financial interest in the project.

Date: ___10/28/2021________ Signed:

Signed: Ryan Hunter
Signed: Lisa Cardoso
Signed: Jessica Hensley

Field Work Performed By: Ryan Hunter______
Environmental Scientist/Biologist

Field Work Performed By: Lisa Cardoso______
Wildlife Biologist

Field Work Performed By: Jessica Hensley______
Environmental Scientist

Appendix A
Tables and Figures

RCA Associates, Inc.

Source: Google Earth
Project Location
Figure 1: Regional Exhibit

Figure 2: Vicinity Exhibit
RCA Associates, Inc.

Source: Google Earth
Project Location

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING NORTH

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING EAST

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING SOUTH

CENTER OF SITE LOOKING WEST

SITE PLAN
05/03/2021
HS
MG
A1.0.0
1 TITLE

PROJECT
DWG. BY:

DATE:

JOB :

SHEET
REVISIONS:

CHK. BY:

Phone: (702) 396-5113, Fax: (702)446-8155
Land Planning Civil Engineering Architectural Design Structural Engineering ACE Design LLCACE Design LLC
Folsom, CA 95630
1024 Iron Point Road, Suite 1046
OF 11
19-50

SIKH TEMPLE
-------

VICTOR VILLE, CA
FIGURE 4: SITE PLANS

Table 1 - Plants observed on the site and known to occur in the immediate surrounding area.

Common Name Scientific Name Location
Velvet Mesquite Prosopis velutina On site and Surrounding Area Creosote bush Larrea tridentata “
California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum ”
Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum ”
Rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus ”
Ephedra Ephedra nevadensis ”
Paper bag Bush Salazaria mexicana “
White bursage Ambrosia dumosa ”
Red brome Bromus ruben “
Kelch grass Schismus barbatus “
Mojave yucca Yucca schidigera “
Ocotillo Fouquieria splendens “
Tumbleweed Kali tragus ssp. tragus “
Asian mustard Brassica tournefortii “
Shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana “
Desert spoon Dasylirion wheeleri “
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara “
Cane cholla Cylindropuntia spinosior “
Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima “
Carob tree Ceratonia siliqua “
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila “

Note: The above list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of every plant which may occur on the site or in the zone of influence.

Table 2 - Wildlife observed on the site during the field investigations.

Common Name Scientific Name Location
Common raven Corvus corax On-site and surrounding area.

Rock Pigeon Columba livia “
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris “
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus ”
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus “
Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus “
Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis “
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps “
Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris “
Common side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana “
Coyote Canis latrans “
Antelope ground squirrel Ammospermophilus leucurus “

Note: The above Table is not a comprehensive list of every animal species which may occur in the area, but is a list of those common species which were identified on the site or which have been observed in the region by biologists from RCA Associates, Inc.

REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following provides a summary of federal and state regulatory jurisdiction over biological and wetland resources. Although most of these regulations do not directly apply to the site, given the general lack of sensitive resources, they provide important background information.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally list ed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. ESA defines “take” as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines the term “harass” as an intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR17.3).

Furthermore, federal regulation 50CFR17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, “harm” includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns su ch as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR217.12).

Section10(a) of the ESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes non federal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by ESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of another wise lawful activity.” Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, generally referred to as an HCP, is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the ESA for administering the incidental take program. NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required

to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance or permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat (ESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.

Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of the ESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act.

California Endangered Species Act
CDFW has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 2080 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Section 2080 prohibits the take of a species listed by CDFW as threatened or endangered. The state definition of take is similar to the federal definition, except that Section 2080 does not prohibit indirect harm to listed species by way of habitat modification.

To qualify as take under the state ESA, an action must have direct, demonstrable detrimental effect on individuals of the species. Impacts on habitat that may ultimately result in effects on individuals are not considered take under the state ESA but can be considered take under the federal ESA.

Proponents of a project affecting a state -listed species must consult with CDFW and e nter into a management agreement and take permit under Section 2081. The state ESA consultation process is similar to the federal process. California ESA does not require preparation of a state biological assessment; the federal biological assessment and the CEQA analysis or any other relevant information can provide the basis for consultation. California ESA requires that CDFW coordinate consultation for joint federally listed and state-listed species to the extent possible; generally, the state opinion for the listed species is brief and references provisions under the federal opinion.

Clean Water Act, Section 404
The COE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the placement of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States include lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as “areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3).

The COE may issue either individual permits on a case -by-case basis or general permits on a program level. General permits are pre- authorized and are issued to cover similar activities that are expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWP’s) are general permits issued to cover particular fill activities. All NWP’s have general conditions that must be met for the permits to apply to a particular project, as well as specific conditions that apply to each NWP.

Clean Water Act, Section 401
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires water quality certification and authorization of placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands and Other Waters of the United States. In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, criteria for allowable discharges into surface waters have been developed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. As such, proponents of any new project which may impair water quality as a result of the project are requ ired to create a post construction stormwater management plan to insure offsite water quality is not degraded. The resulting requirements are used as criteria in granting National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or waivers, which are obtained through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Any activity or facility that will discharge waste (such as soils from construction) into surface waters, or from which waste may be discharged, must obtain an NPDES permit or waiver from the RWQCB. The RWQCB evaluates an NPDES permit application to determine whether the proposed discharge is consistent with the adopted water quality objectives of the basin plan.

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 1600-1616
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 1600-1616 CDFW regulates projects that divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.

Proponents of such projects must notify CDFW and enter into a streambed alteration agreement with them.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code requires a state or local government agency, public utility, or private entity to notify CDFW before it begins a construction project that will: (1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, bank, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; (2) use materials from a streambed; or (3) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pave ment where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake. Once the notification is filed and determined to be complete, CDFW issues a streambed alteration agreement that contains conditions for construction and operations of the proposed project.

California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5
Under the California Fish and Wildlife Code, Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and falcons) or Strigiformes (owls).

Take would include the disturbance of an active nest resulting in the abandonment or loss of young.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migra tory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act.

Sensitive Natural Communities
The California Office of Planning and Research and the Office of Permit Assistance (1986) define project effects that substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants, or that disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community as significant impacts under CEQA.

This definition applies to certain natural communities because of their scarcity and ecological values and because the remaining occu rrences are vulnerable to elimination. For this study, the term “sensitive natural community” includes those communities that, if eliminated or substantially degraded, would sustain a significant adverse impact as defined under CEQA. Sensitive natural communities are important ecologically because their degradation and destruction could threaten populations of dependent plant and wildlife species and significantly reduce the regional distribution and viability of the community. If the number and extent of sensitive natural communities continue to diminish, the status of rare, threatened, or endangered species could become more precarious, and populations of common species (i.e., not special status species) could become less viable. Loss of sensitive natural communities also can eliminate or reduce important ecosystem functions, such as water filtration by wetlands and bank stabilization by riparian woodlands for example.

Protected Plants
The California Desert Native Plant Act was passed in 1981 to protect non-listed California desert native plants from unlawful harvesting on both public and privately- owned lands. Harvest, transport, sale, or possession of specific native desert plants is prohibited unless a person has a valid permit. The following plants are under the protection of the California Desert Native Plants Act:
● Dalea spinosa (smoketree)
● All species of the genus Prosopis (mesquites)
● All species of the family Agavaceae (century plants, nolinas, yuccas) ● All species of Cactus
● Creosote Rings, ten feet in diameter or greater
● All Joshua Trees
The project would be required to comply with the County of San Bernardino Desert Native Plant Protection Ordinance. The removal of any trees listed under Section 88.01.060 would be required to comply with Section 88.01.050, which requires the project applicant to apply for a Tree or Plant Removal Permit prior to removal from the project site.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT M

13471 Mariposa Road / Victorville, California 92395-5396 P.O. Box 1498 / Victorville, California 92393-1498 / (877) 860-6020 www.swgas.com
November 16, 2021

City of Victorville
Planning Division
[email protected]

Re: PLAN21-00020 Request For Comments

Dear Sir/Madam,

Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) facility maps are enclosed which detail gas structures in your project area.

This information is provided only for design purposes. Please forward SWG a copy of the final design drawings for this project when they are ava ilable. The conflicts identified with this review must be field checked prior to a final solution. Please contact SWG as soon as possible and allow a minimum of 90 days to recommend a solution if additional conflicts in a specific site are anticipated.

Please forward all future request to [email protected] for expedited response.

If you have any questions, please contact Shiela Romo (760) 951-4044.

Best Regards,

Christopher Gin
Supv/Engineering
Southern California Division – Southwest Gas
[email protected]

STODDARD W
ELLS RD
100
03
15975
16011
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION TITLE:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Sheet:
Approved By:
Date:
Checked By:
11/10/2021NTS
Planning Division
City of Victorville This document is the property of Southwest Gas Corporation and contains information that is confidential and proprietary. This document may not be copied or distributed without prior written consent. This document is provided for reference only and is not intended to be used for construction planning or line locating purposes. Please refer to your state s Call Before you Dig
law. Southwest Gas
makes no representations or warranties as to the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of this document or its contents. If you have any questions, please contact Southwest Gas Corporation  Engineering Department at (760) 951-4044. SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION AND PROPRIATORY INFORMATION REDLINE MAP
A. Edwards
1 of 1

PRELIMINARY MAP ONLY

NOT TO BE USED FOR

CONSTRUCTION OR

LINE LOCATING
Map Legend
Main Gas Lines (Distribution & HP) Service Gas Lines (Standard & HP) 1 Charlene A. Johnson
From: MATHEW, JACOB K@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 3:52 PM
To: Planning Division
Cc: Clark, Rosa F@DOT
Subject: PLAN21-00020 Request For Comments
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
Thank you for providing us the Plans for the Sikh Temple project, located at 15975 Stoddard Wells Road in the City of Victorville. The project proposes to develop an approximately 29,000-sf Sikh temple and accessory services on a 12.27-acre site (APN: 0473-182-03). We have reviewed the provided project information and no further review by this Office is considered necessary at this time.

However, if an encroachment into State Right-of-Way is undertaken at time of construction or future development, issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required. For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, 6th Floor, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/

These comments result from a review of the materials provided for our evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this email, please contact me.

Thanks,

JACOB K MATHEW
D-8, IGR – Planning
464 W. 4TH Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Ph: 909‐963‐9255

From: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:42 AM
Cc: Fredy Bonilla <[email protected]>; Perry M. Goth <[email protected]>; John Garcia <[email protected]>; Joseph Slegers <[email protected]>; Misty Liggins <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Melissa Krejckant <[email protected]>; Sarah Casper <[email protected]>; Joe Flores <[email protected]>; Jennifer Thompson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Clark, Rosa F@DOT <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Copeland, Patrice@Waterboards <[email protected]>; Zimmerman, Jan@Waterboards 1 Charlene A. Johnson
From: Tyler A Hudson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 4:59 PM
To: Planning Division
Cc: Victorville Planning Customer inbox
Subject: RE: (External):PLAN21-00020 Request For Comments Attachments: Tyler H. Commercial Cover Letter.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

This project will require a service extension and possibly a Line Extension. Also, there are existing SCE facilities in this area that may need to be relocated or Underground via a Rule 20 work order at the developer’s expense. We would need the customer to submit all required information to SCE to say what exactly would be required.

Please encourage the developer to submit to our Victorville Planning Customer inbox ASAP ([email protected]), cc’d on this email. Please also see the attached requirements for new commercial requests.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, thanks.

Tyler Hudson
Local Planning
Victorville Service Center
Cell: (760) 484 0395
Phone: (760) 951 3141
PAX: 13141
SCE Planning Links:

Local Planning Link (Project Forms, Temporary Power, & Information) Electrical Service Requirements (ESR) Link (Electrical Service Connections Guide) Underground Structures (Underground Structures Manual)
Rates & Pricing Choices (Information on Different SCE Rates) SCE Tariff Books (SCE Tariffs)

From: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:42 AM
Cc: Fredy Bonilla <[email protected]>; Perry M. Goth <[email protected]>; John Garcia <[email protected]>; Joseph Slegers <[email protected]>; Misty Liggins <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Melissa Krejckant <[email protected]>; Sarah Casper <[email protected]>; Joe Flores <[email protected]>; Jennifer Thompson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacqueline Harper <[email protected]>; Jennifer Cusack <[email protected]>; Third Party Env Review <[email protected]>; Juan M Lopez <[email protected]>; Tyler A Hudson <[email protected]>; Antoine Williams <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

Dear Customer:

Thank you for allowing Southern California Edison to assist you with your electrical needs.

We are responsible for the design of the electrical system to serve your new project. We are committed to completing your project in a timely and economical manner, and to meet your design and construction time frames. We intend to communicate with you on a regular basis. If you need to contact us for any reason you may do so via any of the following methods:

Email: [email protected]
Cell: (760) 484 0395
Phone: (760) 951 3141
Service Address: 12353 Hesperia Rd Victorville, CA 92395. Attn: Tyler Hudson SCE Victorville S/C

We have highlighted below the plans and information necessary to proceed with the electrical design for your project. Please provide us with the following information at your earliest convenience:

Item Qty Needed Plans Item Qty Needed Information
1 Attached Customer/Project
Information Sheet
1 Assessor Parcel Map
2 Site/Plot (scaled if available) 1 Copy of Grant Deed 2 Street Improvement 2 Recorded Tract Maps (all pages) 1 Grading & Elevation 1 Attached Design Option Letter (Signed) 1 Sewer & Storm Drain 1 EUSERC Drawings
1 Load Schedules and Panel
Drawings
1 Attached Street Light Authorization Letter (Signed)
1 Landscape, Sprinkler, Pedestal
Locations
1 Address Sequence List
1 Street Light Plan 1 Digital File (If Available)

Once we receive the above information, we will provide you with a schedule for completion of the electrical design and installation of your project.

Our goal is to meet or exceed your expectations by giving you excellent service. If you have any questions or feel we are not meeting your expectations, please let us or our supervisor know, as we want to work with you toward a solution.

PLANNING COMMISSION

ATTACHMENT N

Case Type: Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, & Tentative Parcel MapExisting Zoning: R-1B½ (Single-Family Residential - ½ Acre Minimum Size Lots)Project Area: Approx. 2.36 Acre Scope of Work Area on a 12.27 Acre ParcelLocation: 15975 Stoddard Wells RoadAssessor Parcel Number: 0473-182-03CASE: PLAN21-00020

NOVERALLPROJECT SITESCOPE OF WORK AREA

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT G

Planning Commission
Executive Summary &
Verbatim Minutes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PLAN21-00020

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL

MAP WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 29,000 SQUARE FOOT SIKH TEMPLE AND ACCESSORY SERVICES AS WELL

AS THE SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE PARCEL INTO THREE SEPARATE PARCELS ON A PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SITE ZONED R-1 B1/2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - HALF ACRE MINIMUM SIZE) LOCATED AT 15975 STODDARD WELLS ROAD

APPLICANT: Gurdeep Singh

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATES: December 8, 2021

SUMMARY FOR DECEMBER 8, 2021 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED: 3

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR: 3

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: Approved w/Conditions

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

cj

1 Verbatim Minutes of Agenda Item
A Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map

Alex Jauregui: “…Located at 15975 Stoddard Wells Rd. The project and its various components have been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA, as discussed in the staff report, given the allowances provided for “In-Fill Development” and “Minor Land Divisions”. The proposed religious facility is considered an Assembly Use, which is Conditionally permitted in the site’s underlying zoning and the site will primarily be used for meditation; with accessory uses such as food preparation, dining, and instruction in language and musical instruments. Typical hours of operation are Sunday morning to Sunday afternoon; with limited weekday special occasion operations, occurring at various times as conditioned. Staff found the proposal would not cause adverse impacts to the neighboring properties in the vicinity. As proposed the project complies with most typical development standards relating to access, parking, landscaping, building height with various conditions of approval added to ensure all applicable development standards are addressed prior to building permit issuance. Additionally, the project generally complies with the City’s design guidelines, with an increased number of parking lot trees, enhanced entry paving and building elevations that include architectural treatments and features on all sides; such as a stone veneer, decorative door and window trim and tower elements with dome features. With regard to the proposed land division, the proposal is also in compliance with the development standards relating to parcel size and dimensions. Although the proposal generally complies with the development standards of the Municipal Code, required public improvements such as street improvements and undergrounding of above ground utility lines are omitted from the proposal.

However, in accordance with Planning Commission policy 09-001 staff has determined that the subject project should be required to install full public improvements, as included conditions of approval require such accordingly. The noted conditions essentially require full improvements on the entire southern half of the project site, while allowing the northern half of the site to remain unimproved at this time, given its future development potential. This is depicted in attachment H of the staff report. As discussed in the staff report, the applicant disagrees with the staff’s interpretation of the noted Commission Policy and seeks approval to install limited improvements along Stoddard Wells Road and without relocating existing utilities underground. This position is not supported by the City Planner or the City Engineer due to the subject Municipal Code Standards, I’m sorry, requirements already being proposed for suspension along the northern half of the site, possible safety concerns, as well as these types of improvements being required for all new developments in the city for projects of a similar size and scope. With regards to safety concerns, I would note that there was a traffic study submitted by the applicant. However, our City Engineer does not concur with the findings in that traffic study as it relates to safety concerns.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the proposed project, and take the following actions: find the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act titled ‘In-Fill Development Projects’; and find the Tentative Parcel Map categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15315 of CEQA, titled ‘Minor Land Divisions’; and adopt resolution P-21-046, approving the Conditional Use Permit portion of case number PLAN21- 00020 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and adopt resolution number P-21-047 approving the Site Plan portion of case number PLAN21-00020 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and adopt resolution number P-21-048 approving the Tentative Parcel Map potion of 2 case number PLAN21-00020 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and staff will be available for any comments or questions you may have.”
Chair Kurth: “Thank you Mr. Jauregui, any questions for City staff at this point?” Vice Chair Harriman: “How many parking spaces is that project required to have, is that based on the square footage of the main structure?”
Alex Jauregui: “The total required parking is 166 spaces; it is based on the primary assembly area of the facility as well as a secondary classroom or assembly areas. So as proposed in the plans, the site was deficient, I believe about six spaces, however there is sufficient room for that to be added on the site within the project scope boundaries and it has been conditioned for accordingly.” Vice Chair Harriman: “Does the City Engineer agree that the infrastructure for the street is needed to accommodate the entering and exiting of the facility, especially with that many spaces?” Alex Jauregui: “I believe the City Engineer visited the site and there was some concern with relation to that, I believe he is available, online, so I would prefer I would defer to him on that matter.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “And so everyone understands that they’re actually being only required to do half of what would be normality with other buildings of that size, in that street condition. So we’ve had other churches that have had to do all of it, they don’t get the leisure of only having to do half of it. So half of it, the other half that isn’t needed or isn’t going to be required is it pretty much in front of the single-family homes that are going to stay?” Alex Jauregui: “Where it’s not required is north of the existing single-family homes where there is no development existing or proposed at this time. There are no driveway approaches or driveway access points to Stoddard Wells Rd, therefore there will be no impacts from that area of the site, and given its development potential and its size, I believe it’s over five acres. It would be prudent to have the opportunity for that to develop and provide access points in the future based on development of that particular project. “
Vice Chair Harriman: “Okay, thank you.”
Chair Kurth: “Was there something you wanted, you said to defer to our City Engineer, I do see he’s online if you have a question for him.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “What do you think Brian?”
Chair Kurth: “Microphone – there’s just a bit of a technical problem with his microphone right now so...”
Commissioner Thomas: “While he’s getting his technical issues corrected, I heard you say that there was a safety concern there. Is that related to not having that road completed and, the ingress and egress, all of that completed as planned so?”
Alex Jauregui: “From my understanding and my discussion with the City Engineer it is related to, yes, sight distance, acceleration, deceleration of vehicles, and the number of vehicles that potentially could be visiting the same site. To confirm that I believe the City Engineer visited the site to review conditions for himself as a result of this project.” 3 Commissioner Thomas: “Is there a way to mitigate that concern until such time as maybe they can, get the repairs made as needed or as requested; is there a way to mitigate so that they can get started?”
Chair Kurth: “Let’s let the expert give a crack at that, he’s here.” Brian Gengler: “Thank you members of the Planning Commission, I think there were some technology issues, so here I am. Would you remind repeating the question?” Vice Chair Harriman: “With the number of vehicles are going to be entering and exiting that project, especially with that many spaces; do you find it necessary to do the infrastructure upgrade so we keep the street safe because all the traffic that goes by? That is, by the way a busy street, all the vehicles, not all, but a lot of vehicles going to and from the dump are using that road.” Chair Kurth: “I think the best way to put it, because we had another question as well, if you could just give us a quick overview of the street improvements required on that site and reasoning for that requirement.”
Brian Gengler: “Yes, I’m very familiar with that stretch of Stoddard Wells Road. I went out there last week just to refresh my memory and I also looked at the site distance along that stretch of Stoddard Wells Road and in particular where the existing driveway connection is; Stoddard Wells Road would need to be improved, it would need to be widened south of that driveway to have the extra width and there’s an existing slope, that would need to be graded back to have adequate sight distance. So, I did review that again, and in my professional opinion it’d be the southern part of the property from the driveway to the south that would need to be widened to have adequate sight distance and adequate ingress and egress of the property. The northern end, I believe could remain in the existing condition. Although, there would have to be a taper since the road would be widened on the southern half, there would have to be a taper to taper back to the existing width.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “So if the improvements of the infrastructure has changed it would contain some curb and gutter that would control the drainage also?” Brian Gengler: “Well yes, the full street improvements would include curb, gutter and sidewalk and the underground. Right, yes.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Okay, thanks Brian.”
Brian Gengler: “You’re welcome.”
Chair Kurth: “Any other questions for the City Engineer? Thank you, Brian. Okay, at this time then, I will open up the public hearing and then I’d like to see if the applicant or project representative is here this evening? Welcome. “
Gurdeep Singh: “Good afternoon, Chair and all other Commissioners and staff. I appreciate it, for the time staff have devoted for this project; thank you again. This project is all meditation for people to learn and live peacefully with their families, as well as their workplaces. It is very important, at this time of the age, that we teach that. I am the president of nonprofit organization, which is operated by all volunteers. I request all of them to stand up so you can see. They are businessmen, truck drivers, cab drivers, from their income, thank you sit down please. They can’t do this wonderful opportunity and they’re very happy to do it, contribute for peaceful world. I am also a retired engineer. My life is devoted to create this message of God to create a peaceful 4 humanity and we Sikh people, some of you might know, when they go to temples they contribute money as well as do public service with hands at temples. This temple, we are going to invite teachers, police people, all of them they can learn how to meditate at the end of the day and have a wonderful life. We are all volunteers, and we don’t draw any salaries. This is not considered as a Commercial business; this is serving many. On Sunday a hundred people come and during the week only 10 people. Up to 10 people, and we are talking about widening the road, and that’s about from 8 a.m. to maybe 3 p.m., and the traffic can be managed very safely just by putting a flag person at the end of the ceremony or in the beginning. They don’t come, all of them together.

At the end of the ceremony, yes. So, we can have two flag men, when they’re exiting, and they will be safe. We don’t have too many funds to develop a road. We can barely erect this building in stages and then we can operate inviting people of any color or creed. I personally will teach in English. We have gentleman, Mr. Skunderson, his daughter is M.D. doctor, she’s willing to come and serve people without any fee. This meditation is all free, never going to be charged any penny, at any time. So, this is not the Commercial business. The requirements according to the guidelines on ‘I’ attachment is totally adopted by the staff, and right now incorrectly, I have tested, I have given them my feeling about it. They consider it as a full improvement required; widening of the road, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting all that only required for this. I can build a temple for that, and we don’t have the money for roads and even for the temple at this time. We need help. I begged in the meetings that we had with the staff, help me out anyway. In any shape and form to cut down the expenses. but I’m sorry to say nobody came for my help; but there is one and that’s God, and I know for sure, it will happen. They saying it’s a raw land, there’s houses on this project, single family people are living in it. There’s a barn, we use it as storage for construction purposes as we’re getting ready to put scaffolding, we just bought, put them inside because I’m going to build it, and the volunteers are going to come with me and do it. And I know God is going to send people, volunteers to accomplish this goal. So how it can be considered as a raw land when there are houses and buildings and we’re using it? Under that category, scattered a single family residential within existing tracts, the suspension of the construction of the road and underground utility is suspended, it says right on this piece of paper, and I urge and request; please go through this on row number three and first column or any other column, they all wave suspension of the road improvement and utilities. So, I’m having difficult time to devote time on such things, where I should be focusing on how to run and then get this meditation moving along. I remember Billy Graham put a tent in L.A., to get started. That inspired me, that there is something we should do for people, not for yourself. It’s not a Commercial, that I’ve been told, and they’ve been told that the full development is required. I’m sorry, help me out. Find a way for me to help all of you, can come and get out of this daily stress at the end of the day. Police officers, teachers when they go home, they stressed. I don’t want them to go stressed, I want them to go happy. I’m willing to devote my life for this and I appreciate it, listening any question anybody have I can answer.” Chair Kurth: “Are there any questions from the Commission for the project representative?” Vice Chair Harriman: “Sir, is the structure for meditation only, I notice it says for assemblies also.

Are you going to be having, say, weddings, or any other events? Can you give us some insight on that?”
Gurdeep Singh: “Sure. As I mentioned it’s run by volunteers, and those volunteers deserve to get their family gathering, at this, their own place. I’m not, they are, and if somebody wants to have a wedding because their daughter was unmarried, yes, that’s why I mentioned on Saturday during the all year, maybe there’s 10 of them, special Sunday programs. Saturdays, programs. 5 Vice Chair Harriman: “I’m sorry, go ahead.”
Gurdeep Singh: “Traffic can be managed, there’s not much traffic at this time. We have submitted a traffic study, compromising, that when you make a left turn to the property, will extend people southerly, easterly side so that we can have a left-hand lane and those are designed by professional people. They are in this business and I’m sorry, he couldn’t be here today, he had another public appointment and that is where he is, and he apologized he couldn’t come otherwise he would be speaking here about the left turn and current situation of the traffic. So, I’m sorry I couldn’t explain more.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Okay. So, you spoke earlier that you would be having people come in and maybe 10 at a time. So, but now, I mean. There are going to be times when there’s quite a bit of people entering and exiting, is that correct?”
Gurdeep Singh: “Like I mentioned, on Sunday maximum 100 people at this time. So, in order to, at the end of the ceremony, we can have a flag people and get them out without having any accident, very safely. During the week people come to just pray, just like in a church, they would pray, and they’ll go. It’s not that there is a rush of people, never going to happen except Sunday or a special program like you mentioned.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “So is it, your traffic study, that having flagmen at large events is adequate for the traffic?”
Gurdeep Singh: “At this moment, the flagmen is not mentioned in that report. We, it just occurred to me to make the situation safe, we can do that. Once the temple is built, the members, they’re going to contribute their devotions and then we can build the road. All we need, suspension at this time, that’s what we are requesting. And it’s not a little amount the widening of the road on Southernly side has a little mountain, that had to be cut and the retaining wall has to be built, so it’s not little, and then street lighting, that’s also dumped on us. At this time, there’s not a person walking, except probably a homeless person. Which we’d love to welcome him or her to come inside, so Sundays when there is kitchen food available to all congregation people as well as for them. Any one of you can come.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Okay, thank you sir. Thank you.”
Chair Kurth: “I think your issues and what you’ve stated is very clear to us and I think we’re going to be talking about that a little more. I’m going to bring in some more people opening up the public hearing, but I did want to know from you, for the remainder of the conditions for the project, are you okay with the rest of that stuff?”
Gurdeep Singh: “I’m sorry, I didn’t follow.”
Chair Kurth: “The remainder of the conditions, you’re not happy with just one of them, which is the improvements, but the remainder of the project conditions of the Site Plan and CUP. You’re okay with the remainder?“
Gurdeep Singh: “I would say so, yes; but there’s one I read somewhere that undeveloped area needs to be separated with the beautiful gate. I don’t know what’s the purpose, probably they don’t want the people to go there and create a dust, understandable, but why a beautiful gate, I don’t have the money to put a beautiful gate. It can be a chain link fence and there’s no public view to that gate. So, imposing all strict elements, I think we can save a lot of money by simplifying 6 things. Originally, I was going to put a shed there, so least expensive. Then my architect, wonderful person, this Jaspal Sidhu. He did all that good as a volunteer, can you imagine something developing this much work without a penny? This is the devotion. I wish someone can play that video, ‘what Sikhs do’. There’s attachment ‘J’ on this agenda if someone can please play that? It’s easy, it’s a four minutes play and see how much people, Sikh people, do for community during pandemic. Riverside Sikh Temple prepared food, boxed it up and people came in lines on the road, and they delivered to them at no cost and gave them masks, even up to dog food.” Chair Kurth: “There’s no doubt, this is a good thing and I’m sure it’s a very good purpose. I think you’ve made clear the points of contention that you have, and so at this point right now, I’m going to move on and be taking testimony from everyone else and then I’m sure it’ll circle back around with, probably some more, comments and questions of staff once again, but I thank you for clarifying what you’re looking for. I’m going to ask if there’s anyone online that’s looking to speak? Savanna Petty: “Jaspal Sidhu.”
Jaspal Sidhu: “Yes, this is Jaspal Sidhu. Can you guys hear me out?” Chair Kurth: “Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.”
Jaspal Sidhu: “Good evening everybody. I’m the architect and the engineer of record on this job, and I just want to clarify a few things on this. Is it possible that I can share my screen? Now can I share my screen?
Chair Kurth: “I’m being told that that we don’t have that capability at this time.” Jaspal Sidhu: “Oh I wish, I’m sorry. Actually, I wanted to show you the exhibit which was drawn up by the traffic engineer. I wish maybe the staff; can the staff display the grading plan on the screen?”
Chair Kurth: “Are we able to get the grading plan up on the screen? I’m not sure, we’re going to make a call here. I’m not sure if they’re able to do that. We have the site plan.” Jaspal Sidhu: “Yes, the site plan is okay. So, basically what I’m trying to explain is if you guys can look at here, we are showing some widening of the street. It’s not that we are suspending all the improvements on the street. When the traffic study is done, basically if you look at this road. I don’t think I, you guys, there’s no way that I can use my cursor to go through this, can I? Is there any way like I can have a control on the mouse, or no, no control on the mouse? Like I can show you, can the, maybe the staff? Basically, what I’m trying to say is; did you see those hatch lines on this street, the cross hatches? On the street, on the Stoddard Wells Road?” Vice Chair Harriman: “Yes, we can see those.”
Jaspal Sidhu: “Yes, so basically, that’s the widening of the street on both sides of the driveway, and you see those dark lines? That’s creating an island, basically what the traffic engineer is recommending is creating a left turn into the temple. You see the left arrows on the street?” Chair Kurth: “Yes.”
Jaspal Sidhu: “So, there is going to be about 150 feet long left-hand pocket for the traffic coming from the north side coming towards south, that traffic can go straight or they can make a left, there’s a left-hand pocket also for the vehicles to wait in case there’s traffic going from the south 7 to the north. So, in order to accommodate that left-hand pocket we do have to widen the street and also there is a little island they have to create, we have created, on the south side of the driveway so that, you know. The traffic, basically, because we have to create a left turn so basically to accommodate that we have to widen the street on the south side of the driveway, also we have to widen the street on the north side of the driveway. I think that is quite long. I don’t have the measurement in front of me, but it is, you know, quite long. I would say if this is a 200 feet pocket, that’s probably five-six hundred feet of the road which we have to widen in order to create that left-hand pocket. So that will mitigate any requirements for the development of this.

As far as the traffic is concerned or any traffic is to be generated by this development of this traffic, what Mr. Singh is talking about is not the suspension of all of this, but he’s talking about the suspension of like a typical statement which is written there that we have to widen the whole street curb and gutter, the street lights, that’s what we are talking about. So, I just want to clarify that we are not talking about that. We are going to, not asking for the entire suspension but we are willing to do whatever is required for the traffic being generated for this temple to make sure that everybody’s safe on the street.”
Savanna Petty: “Your time is up.”
Chair Kurth: “Thank you, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else online wanting to speak?”
Savanna Petty: “There are no other speakers on zoom.”
Chair Kurth: “Okay. Is there anyone here in the Council Chambers that has submitted a card that would like to speak?”
Savanna Petty: “I have no speaker cards from in Chambers.” Chair Kurth: “Okay. We have one speaker, please.”
Blanca Gomez: “Two minutes correct?”
Chair Kurth: “Three minutes.”
Blanca Gomez:” Three minutes, thank you. So, to the quasi-judicial board before me I pose these questions. Does code as currently constructed allow for viable options for a certificate of occupancy to be granted with modification of staff’s current recommendations? Is the traffic studies that the City Engineer agreed with safety concerns available to the public immediately, and has the City Engineer visited the site with the presence of the prop of the project prospect, if not, why? In my professional observation, it is clear that there is a disconnect between the need of the project’s perspective and the rules and regulations that city enforces. Shall the council mediate? Notwithstanding, the City development, personnel presumably can’t do the following:
can’t consider the project on vacant and raw land, denies the suspension of road development and the suspension is confirmed of road improvement because adjacent properties have not developed the road. The city is looking for project specific improvements and mitigation measures.

And I quote, it says to accommodate the southbound left turn movement from Stoddard Wells Road to the project driveway, it is also recommended that 150 feet southbound left turn pocket be provided. As a safety improvement for the northbound traffic movements, to assure that the northbound left turn movement be made outside of the northbound through lane to reduce the potential of rear end crashes, yet it is not needed for traffic capacity enhancements. As it currently sits, the following terms: reduction, potentiality and not needed. Language that is found in the 8 Evans and Associates vendor’s report pose an option that the Commissioners may look at to help aid the project to move forth. Commissioners I also do understand that in your position there’s not much leeway, so I would understand how you would approach this. The latitude is not there as the Council is. With that said, a viable option for case PLAN21-00024, is to wait to see what the Commissioners board can do and if they do anything. Another option is to bring this to the City Council to wait for a period of 40 days, like we did with the B.I.A. potentially, to have a redirection for the Planning Commissioners if there is concern further. I just wanted to make that part of the hearing record, there are options, thank you.”
Chair Kurth: “Thank you. Okay, if that’s the last of the speakers on this item, then I’m going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission now. I’m assuming that we may still have a couple of questions for staff, and they are here on standby, but it’s time for any further final discussion and deliberation.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Yes, Scott. Pertaining to Mrs. Gomez’s remark, in your opinion does the Planning Commission have just as much knowledge on how to approach this and mitigate the traffic concerns, or is the City Council better at it than us?” Scott Webb: “What’s before the Planning Commission tonight is a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit, barring any appeal the Planning Commission has authority to make full, approval or denial of a project. So, with that said, the Municipal Code is set up whereby the Planning Commission acts on these applications.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Okay, so then I’m going to consider myself just as competent as any City Council person. I have a problem with the amount of traffic that’s going to come in and out of this project. Especially, when there are assemblies; not just people one at a time, coming in and out to meditate. That road is, actually a busy road. You have a traffic study I don’t agree with. That is a busy road; and that road has suffered the consequences of all the traffic now for quite some time, because the existing facilities and residences on that street were there way before that street was busy. So, the way I understand it, they’re grandfathered in. They can’t be required, as you’re being required, to improve the street. Now, you have many things that are happening here. There are many churches in The City that have had to do the road improvements. I don’t think there’s been any bias, in this project, the drainage infrastructure is required. The traffic is the big concern, having flag people out, is not an option. That is virtually, I would never eliminate required traffic, for flag people. It just isn’t going to happen. That road is busy, and with all due respect sir. You say the architect did all this work for free? So, it sounds to me like you’re saving quite a bit of money but you’re also saying you can’t afford to do the road improvements. Okay. I would also like to remind you that the work, is most not, going to be able to be done by volunteers. They have to be licensed contractors and they have to have business licenses in the City, just to finish the project upon completion. So, I do have problems with all of it, and I’ll move on if anybody else wants to speak.”
Chair Kurth: “Other comments?”
Commissioner Thomas: “Yes, while I do understand the dilemma and your request for a suspension of the requirements that The City has set forth. I guess in my mind, how long would it take? How long of a suspension would you need? Secondly, you said that your engineer, your designer had laid out a plan for that left turn lane and has he gotten with The City Engineer about it, have they talked about it?”
9 Chair Kurth: “I’ll open up the public hearing just to answer that one question. Go ahead. Yup, we’re open.”
Gurdeep Singh: “Sorry sir, I’m very well aware of all the certification to be done for the work done and it will be done properly, and it will be signed off by professional people who are required. So, the inspections by City is passed. I’m very well aware of it. Volunteer means, getting stuff to the professional people who comes to work, helping out on the project, that is what I meant. Okay.

Just like concrete contractor, I heard you were a concrete contractor. Labor work required, and I’m very well of the soil mechanics too that needed to be at a certain compaction before you even put concrete on it. I did all that my life, I did from foundation to touch of paint and the punch list.

Very well.”
Chair Kurth: “Sorry sir, I think the question was, can you repeat the question?” Commissioner Thomas: “Yes, I was concerned about the length of time you were requesting a suspension to get this work done. I also have one other question and that had to do with your engineer, your designer meeting with The City Engineer, has he done that, or she done that? “ Gurdeep Singh: “We had meeting where they showed me this paper that you fall under category of raw land and commercial project, which requires full improvement, which we just talked about.

If we go underneath, like I mentioned before, that this property has two single-family homes and a barn, and we store stuff there. We’re getting ready for construction, if we do get a permit. And according to that program, it tells me if adjacent property is developed but is lacking street improvement or underground utilities than suspended until the street block owners of all have suspension agreements. This is Planning Commissions’ guidelines for us to follow. So, I’ve been categorized in a different mode, I’m all just following what it states, we pay taxes on the house, we pay sewer, water, all the time whatever is required and county tax too. So, I’m requesting according to this planning guidelines and God forbid if we do get the money from volunteers, from any big seller…”
Chair Kurth: “Sir, I’m going to interrupt you just because I think; was your question answered, or yeah?”
Commissioner Thomas: “Yes.”
Gurdeep Singh: “Sorry.”
Chair Kurth: “Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to close the public hearing again and I’m going to, any other questions, Commissioner Mesen? Any questions or thoughts?” Commissioner Mesen: “I just had a comment. I believe what you’re trying to build is something very beautiful for your members and the community. However, I do share the same sentiment as my colleagues here. It is a very busy road, it winds, and it gets dark. There’s also the off-ramp and on-ramp to the freeway that leads from Apple Valley to Victorville in that area. So, I understand your frustrations, but I do believe the improvements are needed and those are my comments.”
Chair Kurth: “Thank you. Commissioner Cook-Askins?”
Commissioner Cook-Askins: “Yes, Chairman. I concur, it’s a great project but we also need to be mindful of the safety components, you know. Not only right now, but in the future as well.” 10 Chair Kurth: “And I had one question. I’m not sure if it’s Mr. Jauregui or Mr. Gengler, but the applicant has showed us a few times, these Planning Commission guidelines that do talk about the suspension. Could you give us a little bit of what your take is on that? He talked about it mentioning the possible suspension in a number of columns but I’m not exactly aware of what that is.”
Alex Jauregui: “Yes Mr. Chair, that was attachment ‘I’ of the Planning Commission Staff Report on Planning Commission Policy 09-001. That was created in 2009 to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on when to grant suspension requests. Prior to that, there was no real clear guidance other than not affecting health, safety and welfare and findings prior to that time were not really as clear as they should have been within the resolutions. So, this policy was prepared to provide the Planning Commission guidance upon request for suspension. So, what he’s referencing in his comments are, there’s a top row that notes the type of development, whether it’s new development, addition or expansion to an existing facility, change or intensification of use and then the left side, it talks about the land use type. So, staff considered this Commercial, Industrial as we normally do with assembly uses, we consider them a commercial use. The reason we went with new development on vacant land versus any of the others, is because if there’s no existing facility of the Commercial use right now, right now it’s single-family homes and in fact, they’re being subdivided into their own lot, so they won’t exist on the property anymore. So, it does become then new development on vacant land and there’s no existing facility that’s commercial that can be added onto. It’s not like where there’s an existing church we’re adding onto it, that would have been a different consideration, for example. So, the reference to scattered single family development that is really intended to be for new single family homes.” Chair Kurth: “I understand, okay. Thank you. Alright then, with that I’m going to ask the Commission for a determination.”
Vice Chair Harriman: “I’ll move to concur with the report and the recommendation by The City Engineer and Planning.”
Commissioner Mesen: “Second.”
Savanna Petty: “Commissioner Cook-Askins?”
Commissioner Cook-Askins: “Aye.”
Savanna Petty: “Commissioner Mesen?”
Commissioner Mesen: “Aye.”
Savanna Petty: “Commissioner Thomas?”
Commissioner Thomas: “Aye.”
Savanna Petty: “Vice chair Harriman?”
Vice Chair Harriman: “Aye.”
Savanna Petty: “Chair Kurth?”
Chair Kurth: “Aye.”
Savanna Petty: “That motion passes unanimously.”
11 Chair Kurth: “The project has passed, without your request. I’m sorry.”

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT H

Planning Commission Policy
PCP-09-001

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT I

Roadway Improvements
Location

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT J

Aerial Image

Case Type: Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, & Tentative Parcel MapExisting Zoning: R-1B½ (Single-Family Residential - ½ Acre Minimum Size Lots)Project Area: Approx. 2.36 Acre Scope of Work Area on a 12.27 Acre ParcelLocation: 15975 Stoddard Wells RoadAssessor Parcel Number: 0473-182-03CASE: PLAN21-00020

NOVERALLPROJECT SITESCOPE OF WORK AREA
Item Number: 2
City Council / Board of Directors
Appeal Hearing(s)
Meeting of: May 17, 2022
Submitted By:

Scott Webb, City Planner

Subject:

Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Case No. PLAN21-00038 – A Conditional Use Permit to allow for C-1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) uses within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoned City Initiative Area to include a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit with an environmental exemption for the development of a fueling station and convenience store, a Conditional Use Permit for beer and wine sales for off- site consumption with a finding of public convenience or necessity and a Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two parcels, located at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road.

Recommendation:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive testimony regarding the appeal and take the following action:

Adopt Resolution No. 22-044, upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case No. PLAN21-00038, based upon the same findings made by the Planning Commission at their April 13, 2022 meeting and the record as a whole.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

Background:

On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission denied Case No. PLAN21-00038 by a 4-1 vote, thereby denying a Conditional Use Permit to establish a commercial use within the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoned Initiative Area at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road (Attachment B). The proposed commercial use included the development of a gas station and convenience store with beer and wine sales. The project also proposed a Parcel Map which would create two parcels from one parcel, including a

1.27-acre parcel for the fueling station and a 3.95-acre parcel for a future phase two development.
2 6
0 2
The site is located immediately adjacent to single family residential to the south. The site is also located directly adjacent to a newly developed gas station and convenience store located north of the site, at the northwest corner of the same street intersection. This adjacent development was approved in 2018 prior to the Planning Commission’s adoption of a policy that helps guide the placement of future gas stations within the City, and unlike the current proposal that abuts single family residential, the newly developed gas station has a self-service storage facility located between the gas station and the abutting residential, which serves as a buffer to help mitigate impacts, such as noise.

On April 15, 2022, the appellant filed an appeal (Attachment C) of the Planning Commission’s decision, pursuant to Section 16-2.02.050 of the V.M.C., which seeks to reverse the denial of a C-1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) use within and R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoned Initiative Area. The applicant’s appeal states their belief that an error was made by the Planning Commission given the results of the special studies provided showed no indications of adverse impacts on surrounding residential areas. Additionally, buffer improvements proposed were shown to be sufficient to offset required setbacks, and that nearby developments were approved under similar circumstances.

Discussion:

There are two City Initiative Areas within Victorville (Attachment B), this area being one of them. By a vote of the citizens, by ballot initiative in the 1980s, these areas were envisioned to generally protect R-1 Single-Family Residential zoned areas from higher density multi-family residential by preventing zone changes without a vote of the electorate within the City. Although not a Commercial District, the R-1 District conditionally allows commercial uses within the Initiative Areas at appropriate locations (e.g. major intersections, etc.) with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

It was found by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code, that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated is not consistent with the General Plan and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, given that the fuel dispensing commercial use will create a negative impact on the established residential uses, properties and improvements within the vicinity, based on the presented public record, such as:
a. Public opposition to the project;
b. The inadequacy of a 50-foot buffer between the residential and proposed commercial use, given that the Planning Commission’s Car Wash and Gas Station Policy (Reso. No. P-21-052) discourages gas stations and car washes within 300- feet of residential zoning;
c. A Noise Study that indicated an increase in noise as a result of the project; d. The accuracy of the Traffic Study that was questioned by the Planning Commission;
2 6
0 2
e. Unwanted direct pedestrian passage between the residential and proposed commercial use via an open drainage channel easement and/or Amargosa Road to Del Norte Drive; and
f. A newly developed gas station located north of the site that can serve the needs of the area.

It has been found that pursuant to Planning Commission Policy Resolution P-21-052, the mitigation proposed and/or required by the proposed Conditions of Approval, including the residential buffer required by Section 16-3.10.030 of the VMC, is not adequate to properly mitigate against noise, traffic and glare that the project will produce for a gas station located within 300-feet of a residentially zoned property.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the proposed commercial use. Should the City Council wish to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a commercial use within and R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoned Initiative Area at the subject site, the project in its entirety shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of all of the applications associated with this project, given that the Planning Commission only took action to deny the Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial use, which is the prerequisite application to all subsequent applications, such as allowances to sale alcohol from a commercial location.

Attachments: A. Resolution No 22-044
B. Appellant Application
C. Background Information from the April 13th, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 22-044

RESOLUTION NO. 22-044

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE NO. PLAN21-00038 – A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COMMERCIAL) USES WITHIN AN R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONED CITY

INITIATIVE AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MOJAVE DRIVE AND AMARGOSA ROAD.

WHEREAS, an application was received from A & S Engineering regarding property in the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as follows:

ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 4 WEST, S. B. B, M. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND APPROVED BY THE SURVEYOR GENERAL DATED MARCH 19, 1856, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18, THENCE SOUTH 0°40' EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 18, 280 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5190, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 75 OF MAPS, PAGE 30, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 11' 05" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 5190, 1063.50 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT

CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MOJAVE ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY DEED RECORDED JULY 19, 1966 IN BOOK 6665, PAGE 53, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 0° 40' 00" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID MOJAVE ASSOCIATES PROPERTY 280.10 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 18, THENCE NORTH 89° 10' 25" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1064.11 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 23 FEET. ALSO

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO IN THE EAST 40 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, BY DEED RECORDED JULY 17, 1959 IN BOOK 4878, PAGE 177, OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 3106- 181-01-0-000; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the 13 th day of April 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, to hear arguments for and against the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found 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 found the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Resolution No. 22-044 May 17, 2022

15061(b)(4) entitled review for exemption, because the project will be rejected pr disapproved by the public agency, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the site is not adequate in size to accommodate the proposed use and lacks adequate development standards and Conditions of Approval to ensure land use compatibility, as well as the projects deficiencies with applicable standards of Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code (VMC), including the absence of a sufficient residential buffer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-3.07.020(g) of the Victorville Municipal Code entitled ‘Special requirements for certain permitted and conditional uses,’ that the proposed commercial use is not appropriate at this particular location for the governing C-1 Zone District that accommodates activities that are neighborhood, community, and regional in scale, the needs of which this proposal will not serve; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.050(b) of the Victorville Municipal Code the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated is not consistent with the General Plan and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare given that the fuel dispensing commercial use will be negative to the established residential uses, properties and improvements within the vicinity because of, however not limited to, the following evidence; and
a. Public opposition to the project;
b. The Planning Commission Car Wash and Gas Station Policy (Reso. No. P-21-052), which discourages gas stations and car washes within 300-feet of residential zoning; c. A Noise Study that indicated an increase in noise as a result of the project; d. The results of a Traffic Study that was questioned to its accuracy by the Planning Commission;
e. The 50-foot buffer between the two uses, which is considered to be inadequate; Resolution No. 22-044 May 17, 2022

f. Direct pedestrian passage from the residential property to the south via an open drainage and/or Amargosa Road and Del Norte Drive; and
g. A newly developed gas station located north of the site that can serve the needs of the area.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Planning Commission Policy Resolution P-21-052, that the mitigation proposed and/or required by the proposed Conditions of Approval, including the residential buffer required by Section 16.3.10.030 of the VMC, is not adequate to properly mitigate against noise, traffic, and glare that the project will produce for a gas station located within 300-feet of a residentially zoned property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to Section 16-3.02.040 of the Victorville Municipal Code that the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a neighborhood commercial use (fuel dispensing facility with a convenience store) within an R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoned City Initiative Area on the hereinabove described property was denied, disallowing any further action on the project; and
WHEREAS, an appeal application was received on the 15th day of April 2022 from A & S Engineering regarding the Planning Commission approval of Planning Case No. PLAN21-00038; and
WHEREAS, the appellant believes there was an error made in the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project based upon the proposal complying with Planning Commission Car Wash and Gas Station Policy (Reso. No. P-21-052) and that the special studies provided showed no indications of adverse impacts on surrounding areas, buffer improvements proposed were shown to be sufficient to offset required setbacks to residential properties, and that nearby developments were approved under similar circumstances; and WHEREAS, an appeal hearing was held before the City Council on the 17 th day of May 2022, pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, of the Government Code, State of California, and Resolution No. 22-044 May 17, 2022

Section 16-2.02.090 of the Victorville Municipal Code to hear arguments for and against the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all documents constituting the record upon which the Planning Commission’s decision was made, assessed the appellants statements on why they believe an error was made in the Planning Commission’s decision, and heard all public testimony provided during the public hearing; 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, City Council finds that the appellants position that an error was made in the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by evidence sufficient to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision based upon: requirements outlined in the Victorville Municipal Code (V.M.C.) including the approval of conditional uses, development standards, and design guidelines per V.M.C. Sections 16-3.02.050, 16-3.10.020, 16-3.10.030, and 16-3.10.060; V.M.C. Section 16-3.02.050 and 16-3.07.020 allows for the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional use Permit on the basis of the application and the evidence supported so long as these uses are not injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the community; the appellants position indicates compliance with these standards supported by proposed mitigated measures to accommodate Planning Commission Policy (Reso. No. P-21-052); however, the proposed measures include a 50’ landscaped buffer which is not adequate to properly mitigate against noise, traffic, and glare that the project will produce for a gas station located within 300-feet of a residentially zoned property; a newly developed gas station located north of the proposed site will serve the needs of the area, therefore, the need for similar amenities has been fulfilled.

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

Resolution No. 22-044 May 17, 2022

SECTION 1. That the appellant’s request to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to allow for a neighborhood commercial use (fuel dispensing facility with a convenience store) within an R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoned City Initiative Area Case No.

PLAN21-00038 is denied.

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT
Background Information from the April 13th Planning
Commission Meeting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PLAN21-00038

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR C -1 (NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COMMERCIAL) USES WITHIN AN R -1 (SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONED CITY

INITIATIVE AREA, A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH AN ENV IRONMENTAL

EXEMPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FUELING STATION AND CONVENIENCE

STORE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR BEER AND WINE SALES FOR OFF -SITE

CONSUMPTION WITH A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY AND A PARCEL

MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST

CORNER OF MOJAVE DRIVE AND AMARGOSA ROAD

APPLICANT: A & S Engineering

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATES: April 13, 2022

SUMMARY FOR APRIL 13, 2022 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED: 3

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR: 2

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING OPPOSED: 1

NUMBER OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IN FAVOR: 0

NUMBER OF WRITTEN COMMENTS OPPOSED: 2

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommended Denial

PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: Cook- Askins Jr. Aye
Mesen Aye
Thomas Aye
Harriman Aye
Kurth No

cj

Verbatim Minutes April 13, 2022
Item #4 PLAN -21-00038

Chair Kurth: Moving on to Item #4, staff report please.

Scott Webb: Thank you Chairman Kurth, fellow Commissioners. Item #4 is case PLAN21-00038. It is a C onditional Use Permit to allow for C- 1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) uses within an R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone, City Initiative area. A Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit with an Environmental Exemption to allow for the development of a fueling station and convenience store, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for beer and wine sales, for off-site consumption, with a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity and a P arcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two parcels . This is located at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road.

In summary , the facility t hat’s proposed is a fuel dispensing facility with eight islands and a 4200 square foot convenience store. It is located within the City’s Initiative Area, and to summarize what that is; in the 1980’s there was two areas of the City where residents gathered together and brought forward a ballot initiative that locked in the zoning, within the particular areas. This Initiative Area spans mainly from El Evado to the west and Village Drive to the e ast. So this is in, kind of, the heart of that Initiative Area, which locked the zoning in place. It does not allow the City Council to create any rezones without the vote of the people. Following that decision, the M unicipal Code has been modified to ‘ conditionally’ allow uses within a zone that are not typical of a residential zone.

This particular property is zoned R -1; however, the City’s Municipal Code allows for conditional uses within the Initiative Area, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This has been implemented throughout the last few decades. It has actually been implemented to the north of this site, where you see a storage facility and a vacant parcel, but that vacant parcel has been recently developed with a Beyond convenience store and 76 fuel station, that should open shortly. The C onditional Use Permit gives the Planning Commission discretion on these type of uses.

The proposal that is before you today first came before the City staff back in September of 2020. We have had four of those preliminary reviews before they formally submitted. Throughout the process, staff has advised the applicant of our concern of the development being close to residential and within an I nitiative Area that is zoned residential, and the developer has taken steps to do what they can to mitigate those concerns. Namely, the first item was they originally had a car wash and drive thru as part of this facility, those have been removed. They have added a 50- foot landscape buffer along the southern edge of the development, but those concerns still persist , mainly following the Planning Commission’s action in January of this year to adopt a policy on car washes and gas stations throughout the City, to help guide new development of those facilities. One of the policy standards, include restricting gas stations and or car washes within 300 feet of residential, unless the facility is mitigated in a manner to prevent any impacts to noise, traffic, and glare. So, with that, what is being brought forward today, has a 50-foot buffer and the applicant is requesting the Commission to consider that sufficient.

Along with this proposal there has been a noise study that has been prepared. The findings of that noise study state the impacts would be less than significant , noting that the adjacent residents would be subject of up to a 58-decibel noise level. That is similar to a conversation of voice or background music. The traffic study was also prepared. The traffic study, and also the noise study , analyzed the entire site if it was to be built out.

What you are seeing on the screen here is the total site, i t is a little over 5 acres. The parcel that would be developed is only 1.25 acres on the hard corner, but nonetheless , the studies that were prepared analyzed the entire site and the traffic st udy also concluded that with the improvements , that the development would still have an acceptable level of service for traffic.

Following the notification of this project we did receive three letters of op position, those have been emailed out and posted on the web for the Planning Commission’s consideration, and with that, staff has brought forward a recommendation that leaves the Commission with two options.

The first, Option A would be to adopt Resolutio n Number P-22-016, denying this Conditional Use Permit portion of case number PLAN21- 00038, thereby denying the conditional use within the I nitiative Area and disallowing any further action on this item.

Or Option B, which includes finding the project categorically exempt under Section 15332 of the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act entitled “in-fill development projects ” and Section 15315 entitled “minor land divisions ” and adopt R esolution Number P -22-016, approving the Conditional Use Permit portion of case number PLAN21-00038; subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and adopt Resolution Number P-22-017, approving the Site Plan portion of case number PLAN21-00038; subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and adopt Resolution Number P-22-018, approving the C onditional Use Permit portion of case number PLAN21- 00038; subject to the attached C onditions of Approval, and adopt Resolution Number P -22-019, making the necessary F indings of Public Convenience or N ecessity for alcohol sales and approving the C onditional Use Permit portion of case PLAN21- 00038; subject to the attached C onditions of A pproval, and adopt Resolution Number P-22-020, approving the P arcel Map portion of case number PLAN21-00038; subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Staff is available should you have questions. Hand it back to you Chairman.

Chari Kurth: Okay, thank you. Thank you for the report. Questions from the Commission of staff?

Commissioner Mesen: I have a question and a comment. In the report it says that a 5% growth rate was added due to COVID impacts. Are those impacts identified as just jobs that were lost or people working from home? Because t he study was done in June of 2021 and school was not in session and a lot of schools are connected off of those main roadways. So, I want to know if that traffic study reflects the influx of school traffic that we see most of the year.

Brian Gengler: I can attempt to answer that question without going into all the details of the traffic study. I think it just took into account the drop in traffic due to COVID because there was a drop . Although, it varied from location to location and it probably also accounted for the , you know , the drop in less school traffic . So, I’m assuming that it accounted for both of those, but without digging into all the details you know I couldn’t really answer your question, that’s my assumption.

Commissioner Mesen: Thank you, and then just one comment. I know that the 10 sites that were provided were based off those that were operational at the end of fiscal year

21. However, this Chevron off of Roy Rogers and Civic Drive is also operational, there is a Circle K and an AR CO off El Evado and Palmdale as well , so that puts it at 13. Okay, that’s all.

Commissioner Cook-Askins: I’d like to thank Mr. Webb for answering some questions for me this afternoon, but I just had a couple that I thought of right now. For the noise study, does that also include the new fueling station that is going in across the street there?

Scott Webb: I’m sorry you said for the noise study?

Commissioner Cook-Askins: Yes.

Scott Webb: The noise study was just related to the impacts generated by the project itself.

Commissioner Cook-Askins: And then my second question was, I believe a few months ago, did we approve a gas station down the road on the corner of El Evado and Mojave or in that general area?

Scott Webb: Yes, there was an entitlement there on the corner.

Commissioner Cook-Askins: Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Thomas: I believe I heard in your staff report that the 300-foot buffer from a commercial establishment like this and the housing that’s in close proximity to thi s station. Is that 300-foot buffer there or is it less than the 300?

Scott Webb: The way that the Planning Commission’s policy was drafted; it’s 300 feet from the development. It’s essentially looked at as not a preferred location , unless the development can be designed in a manner to mitigate any impacts that development may bring. So, this facility is right adjacent to residential, it does provide a 50-foot buffer along the southern edge and a landscape buffer, but it does not meet that 300- foot threshold that was stipulated in the Planning Commission policy.

Commissioner Harriman: Minor, but I noticed that Burrtec isn’t okay with the location of the trash enclosure.

Scott Webb: I believe that was conditioned for, in the event that the Planning Commission approves it, that we can work that out with Burrtec and bring it into a position that’s further away from the residents as well.

Chair Kurth: Okay, then at this point I’m going to go ahead and open up the P ublic Hearing on this item. I would like to know if either the applicant or the representative is here. Yes, welcome sir. Come on up. Welcome.

Ahmad: Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your time this afternoon. As staff indicated during the past couple of years, we have been working with your great staff to develop a project that’s before you. A s staff and Mr. Webb indicated , this original project was a bigger development of the 5 acres but since then we’ve eliminated a big portion of the commercial part development to the west . We eliminated the car wash, and again to be sensitive to the users nearby, and also comply with the City staff’s requirements.

As I said , in the past couple years, we’ve developed this site so that it complies with the City’s, you know, landscaping, parking, setbacks and what have you. Then since the application was submitted back in 2020, I understand, the City came through with the guidelines for service stations wi thin certain, you know, corners and what have you and the three criterias. There was five questions, two of them read car wash which we don’t have in this project. In regards to the other three items, one was that the service station is to be on opposite corners of the, you know, not to be on the same side. Which we are, you know the 76 is the new one, which is on the northwest corner we’re on the south side so we cater to the different flow of traffic. Number two, in regards to the Commissioner Thomas was asking about the 300 feet, again, as Mr. Webb indicated, the condition reads 300 feet or as long as we mitigate it, and our belief is that we intentionally set the building back 50 feet to provide a, you know, a 50-foot buffer. We have a, we’re proposing an 8 foot high, 8-foot-tall wall to create additional buffer and also one of the things was we, you know of course, facing the building toward the street so that it creates more buffer between the residences and the street. So, those three items we believe mitigates those requirements.

In regards to the market study that was also done, and submitted to City staff, and I think it indicated that there won’t be any impact from our facility based on the population and the requirements, or the need for the services we provide those services and it won’t impact anybody, any other facility. Again, this is a small, the two property owners are, well applicants are here and this, it’s a small family owned business they have another facility that they’re building in Victorville. They love the City and they like to be part of it and the other facility they bought / building is on 7
th and Sage, and they love to have this as the
second operation and they would love to invest in the City and with your approval of course and we’re here to answer any questions also our traffic justification. Commissioner Mesen and you had a question on traffic. Our traffic engineer is on Zoom so just in case I didn’t answer any questions, he’s available and again I’m here to answer any questions that you might have.

Chair Kurth: Are there any questions at this tim e from the Commissioners for the applicant’s rep?

Commissioner Harriman: Yes, is all the drainage on the property contained like we normally do with the tanks or the retention?

Scott Webb: There is retention, but there is a drainage course that they’re allowed to convey the flows through the site as it currently exists, you can se e on the aerial there.

Kind of where there’s some vegetation, that’s a drainage course that will be piped through the site.

Commissioner Mesen: And then I don’t know if the representative is able to address my question at all and if not, I understand, but I pose the same question.

Ahmad: No, my apology I don’t know how we would do that. Tim Chan from Kimley-Horn is on Zoom, he should be. Sorry, I don’t know what to say.

City Clerk: Give us just one moment.

Ahmad: Okay, sure.

Chair Kurth: Are there any other questions while we are waiting for him to hop online?

Tim Chan: Hello, can you hear me?

Chair Kurth: Oh, there we go. Yes, we can hear you.

Tim Chan: I’m with Kimley-Horn and I prepared the traffic study at this site. To answer the Commissioner’s question regarding the COVID 5%. So, that was a typical percent used to capture not only the drop in traffic from COVID, but things like school, things like businesses not operational and that’s just something we have to do during, you know, go away when counts weren’t as reliable with those closures.

Commissioner Mesen: Thank you.

Chair Kurth: Does that answer your question?

Commissioner Mesen: Yes

Chair Kurth, Yes. Okay, thank you for that. Any other questions?

Commissioner Thomas: Just again on this buffer. Help me understand a little better the buffer, how you mitigated the…

Ahmad: Number one, we set the building from the south property line 50 feet toward the street, number one. Landscaping, a good substantial amount of landscaping buffer and also, we have an 8-foot-high wall that separates the residential from the building Sir. And again, the intent is to separate the, you know, the canopy from the residences, so the building also adds another buffer.

Commissioner Mesen: I have a question now that you mentioned that. Is that wall going to be in similar, I guess, look the same way the wall on the that the opposite property has buffering the residential area?

Ahmad: Whatever you like. Our intention is to make sure it’s aesthetically pleasing, and we’ll be more than happy to work with staff to come up with something that you would like. Either slump stone or stucco or whatever you like, we can definitely do that.

Commissioner Mesen: Thank you.

Ahmad: Thank you.

Chair Kurth: I had one quest ion knowing that this property is in the community I nitiative Zone. I was just curious how long, and the applicant may have to answer this. How long did the applicant, or current owners, have they owned this property?

Ahmad: If you don’t mind, I’ll just…

Chai Kurth: Go ahead.

Ahmad: Because the applicant is in escrow , but maybe he knows how much , how long the previous / current owner owned it.

Chair Kurth: Okay

Ahmad: I’m sure it ’s been a long time because I have spoken to the broker that we’re dealing with and I’m pretty sure, I’m sure the gentleman has owned it...

Chair Kurth: So, this development is , they’re currently acquiring this property to be able to, okay, I understand. That was all. Okay, I think that’s it, thank you.

Ahmad: If you have any questions let me know.

Chair Kurth: Great, thank you. And then I’d like to see if there’s anyone else here in the council chambers that would like to speak to the Commission. Do we have any cards?

City Clerk: We do. A Clayton Moore please.

Clayton Moore: Okay, hello.

Chair Kurth: Hello, I just wanted to remind everyone that we will give everyone three minutes to speak, and it will have a timer going on. Thank you.

Clayton Moore: Okay, so I heard your discussion and your mailer to the res idents is incomplete because it doesn’t show the Beyond station at the top. The lines that border the property that you’re speaking of, are water drainage areas. I’m concerned about the whole need for an Environmental Exemption anyway. I don’t know if my neighbors want their 8-foot wall along the back of their property there and apparently our ancestors designated this as a community I nitiative Area. Which apparently requires a vote of the people to amend that. I didn’t see that in your process here. So, I’ m a little confused by how you’re proceeding, and we do have , as the lady noted, Chevron Rocket, Circle K, Beyond right across the street and that is a very busy intersection. Hook Jr. High is there, the brand-new school, the RB 21 school, South Baker schools over there and I live over there. I do the adopt -a-street there, there’s lots of traffic every day and so, you know, I recommend rethinking this or abandoning it as Option A gives you the option to do. Thank you.

Chair Kurth: Thank you.

City Clerk: There are no additional in-chamber speakers and there are no Zoom speakers.

Chair Kurth: Okay, thank you. Oh hello.

Arpay Bhatia: Hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and board. My name is Arpay Bhatia and I’m a partner in the family -owned business that we have. We have been operating here, well not here, but we have been operating overall for 15 years now and we are building a second site on 7
th and Sage and we would love to be a part of your community here and be able to, with your approval, build our site here as well so we could be a part of your community. That’s all I have to say.

Chair Kurth: Okay, thank you for that. Okay, if there’s no one else for item #4 then I’m going to close the Public Hearing, at this time, and I’ll bring it back to the Commission for any further questions, any deliberation and a motion.

Commissioner Mesen: I Commissioner Mesen, move to approve Option A.

Commissioner Thomas: I Commissioner Thomas, second.

City Clerk: I have a 1
st by Commissioner Mesen and a 2nd by Commissioner Thomas. I’ll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Cook-Askins?

Commissioner Cook-Askins: Aye.

City Clerk: Commissioner Mesen?

Commissioner Mesen: Aye.

City Clerk: Commissioner Thomas?

Commissioner Thomas: Aye.

City Clerk: Vice Chair Harriman? Vice Chair Harriman?

Vice Chair Harriman: Aye.

City Clerk: Chair Kurth?

Chair Kurth: No.

City Clerk: Motion passes for Option A with Chair Kurth voting no.

Chair Kurth: Okay, thank you and we’ll move on to the final item.

Item Number: 4
Planning Commission

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Meeting of: April 13, 2022
Submitted By:

Michael Szarzynski, Senior Planner
Case:

PLAN21-00038
Subject:

A Conditional Use Permit to allow for C-1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) uses within an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoned City Initiative Area, a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit with an environmental exemption to allow for the development of a fueling station and convenience store, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for beer and wine sales for off-site consumption with a finding of public convenience or necessity and a Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel into two parcels.

Applicant:

A&S Engineering
Location:

The southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road
Recommendation:

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

OPTION A

1. Conditional Use Permit Denying Resolution (Initiative Area) – Adopt Resolution No.

P-22-016, denying this Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No. PLAN21-00038, thereby denying the commercial use within the initiative area and disallowing any further action on this item; or

OPTION B

1. Environmental Assessment – Find the project categorically exempt under Section 73 2
4 1
7 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) entitled “In-Fill Development Projects” and Section 15315 entitled “Minor Land Divisions”; and

2. Conditional Use Permit Approving Resolution (R-1 Initiative Area ) – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-016, approving this Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No.

PLAN21-00038, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and

3. Site Plan – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-017, approving the Site Plan portion of Case No. PLAN21-00038, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and

4. Conditional Use Permit ( Fuel Dispensing Facility) – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-018, approving this Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No. PLAN21-00038, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and

5. Conditional Use Permit (Alcohol Sales) – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-019, making the necessary Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity and approving this Conditional Use Permit portion of Case No. PLAN21-00038, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and

6. Parcel Map – Adopt Resolution No. P-22-020, approving the Parcel Map portion of Case No. PLAN21-00038, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and Summary:

The applicant is requesting approval of this project in order to allow for the development of a fuel dispensing facility with eight fueling islands and a 4,200 sq. ft. convenience store with beer and wine sales. The proposal is located on a 5.24-acre vacant property at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road. It is located adjacent to residences and is within the R-1 Single-Family Residential zoned City Initiative Area, which allows for C-1 Neighborhood Service uses with a Conditional Use Permit. A Parcel Map is also proposed, which would create two parcels from one parcel, including a 1.27- acre parcel for the gas station and a future 3.95-acre parcel for a Phase Two. This entitlement does not include Phase Two. Based upon the site design, proposed use and building elevations, staff finds the project complies with the Municipal Code as conditioned. However, the Planning Commission must decide if the mitigation is enough to meet the recently adopted policy for gas stations (Attachment J) as the proposal is within 300-feet of residences. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the project as noted in the following Staff Analysis Section Two below.

Discussion/Analysis:

1. Environmental Assessment.

Pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) entitled “In-Fill Development Projects”, new construction of a building on a on-site less than five acres in size can be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA if the project meets certain benchmarks. In accordance with the noted CEQA Section 15332, Staff finds that the subject proposal meets said benchmarks and is considered Categorically Exempt from CEQA since:
 The project site (after Parcel Map) is less than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban development; and
74 2
4 1
7  The proposal is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning regulations; and
 According to the Biological Survey prepared for the project, the site has minimal value as habitat for rare, endangered, threatened, or special status species; and
 The development can be served by all required utilities and public services; and  Approval of the project will not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air or water or quality.

Pursuant to Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) entitled “Minor Land Divisions”, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is Categorically Exempt from CEQA because:
 The division of the property is into four or fewer parcels; and  The parcel is located in an urbanized area; and
 The parcel is zoned residential and is in conformance with the General Plan; and
 All services and access are provided to the proposed parcels.

2. Conditional Use Permit – City Initiative Area.

Initiative Area Background
 There are two City Initiative Areas within Victorville (shown below), this area being one of them. By a vote of the citizens (ballot initiative), these areas were established to generally protect R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoned areas from Zone Changes to other zoning designations, primarily multi-family zoning.

It would take a vote of the citizens to change zoning within these areas.

Consequently, Neighborhood Commercial uses were not the primary land use concern to prevent, therefore an allowance was given for those commercial uses at appropriate locations (e.g. major intersections, etc.) with a Conditional Use Permit.

75 2
4 1
7 Neighborhood Service Commercial (C-1) Uses within Initiative Areas  In accordance with Section 16-3.07.020(g) of the Development Code (Title 16) entitled ‘Special requirements for certain permitted and conditional uses,’ Those uses listed under the C-1 Zone within the Land Use table may be allowed within residentially zoned City Initiative Areas through approval of a Conditional Use Permit . Therefore, the applicant has proposed the subject fueling station and convenience store at this intersection location.
 There is an existing newly opened gas station directly to the north on the northwest corner of the same intersection. Staff notes that this development has an existing storage facility between the residential neighborhood and the gas station, which acts as a large buffer that the proposed gas station does not have.

Resolution to Deny or Approve
 The Planning Commission must decide if a Neighborhood Service Commercial use, specifically a gas station with a convenience store, is appropriate within the R-1 City Initiative Area. The Commission has been given two adopting options:
o Option A – A Denying Resolution (No. P-22-016), which would deny the entirety of the project since the commercial project requires approval of this CUP.
o Option B – An Approving Resolution (No. P-22-016), which would approve this CUP portion of the project, allowing for a commercial use  The Commission may consider the following in its decision, but not limited to:
o Public Input
o The Planning Commission Car Wash and Gas Station Policy (Reso. No.

P-21-052 attached with responses – Attachment H), which discourages gas stations and car washes within 300-feet of residential zoning o The Noise Study
o The Traffic Study
o The 50-foot buffer between the two uses, which may be considered adequate enough
o Direct pedestrian passage from the residential property to the south via an open drainage and/or Amargosa Road and Del Norte Drive o The fact a new gas station across the street can serve the needs of the area

3. Site Plan.

General Information
 The site is located at the southwest corner of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road and is generally bordered by residential property to the south, west and 76 2
4 1
7 northeast, a new gas station and an established storage facility to the north, a four-plex to the northeast and vacant land to the east.

Site Access
 Access to the site will be via two driveways, one along Mojave Drive and one along Amargosa Road. The development will also have an access point to future Phase Two to the west. Phase Two is conceptual only to demonstrate that a circulation pattern can work between the two phases.

Parking/Circulation
 The site plan indicates an adequate number of parking spaces for the project.

Title 16 requires 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area for the convenience store and the fueling station is self-parked. Based upon the standards noted above, the proposal is in accordance with off-street parking requirements as 22 spaces are provided and 21 are required (4,200 sq. ft. convenience store / 200 sq. ft. = 21 spaces total required). The site does not have a designated loading area but shall be located away from the residences (Site Plan Condition #6).

Additionally, the site has 30-foot drive aisles around the fueling island, with ample room for movements.
 Enhanced paving is not noted on the site plan. Therefore, Staff has included Site Plan Condition #7, requiring the addition of enhanced paving (e.g. stamped color concrete) at all drive entrances, the storefront and pedestrian paths of travel with details/specifications to be provided and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator during the plan check review process.

Residential Buffer
 Title 16 Section 16-3.10.030 requires the project to install a six to eight-foot high decorative wall along the rear property line (rear easement line for this site) until the street-side ten-foot setback, whereas the wall will drop to four- feet in height to the property line (Site Plan Condition #8). Additionally, the Commercial Design Guidelines encourages buffers between residential and commercial land uses, including setbacks, landscaping and walls. The proposed development indicates a 50-foot rear buffer, including an approximate 20-foot utility easement (10-feet each side of the property line), the required eight-foot high wall, a 15-foot landscaping setback and an additional 15-foot setback to the building. Staff finds this buffer minimally acceptable, although Staff will recommend a Condition to require wrought-iron security fencing to prevent loitering within this ‘dead’ space (Site Plan Condition #9) as well as any exposed dirt within the easement or the buffer be maintained with decorative rock (Condition #10).
 The drainage area which runs behind the project is a direct access to the residential neighborhood to the rear. As proposed, even with the installation of an 8-foot high wall, would allow for possible loitering and problematic pedestrian access between the two properties. Therefore, Staff is including Site 77 2
4 1
7 Plan Condition #11, which will require curbing and a six to eight foot wrought iron fencing between the two phases and connecting to the buffer wall at the southwest corner of the property.

Landscaping
 The proposal meets Title 16 and Commercial Design Guidelines landscaping requirements since planters are distributed throughout the parking lot and multiple 24-inch box trees are provided throughout the site. Additionally, the development has front landscaping between the street and the sidewalk which will soften the street scene. Since the applicant has proposed landscaping that is above and beyond Title 16 requirements, Staff finds the landscape plan in accordance with Title 16 and the Commercial Design Guidelines, excepting for the lack of landscaping within the front planters and planter diamonds. Staff has included Site Plan Condition #12 ensuring these areas will be landscaped.

Trash Enclosure
 The trash enclosure located on-site is well screened and located away from the site’s street frontage in accordance with Title 16 standards. However, Burrtec has indicated that the location is not accessible. Additionally, the Commercial Design Guidelines recommends that trash enclosures be located away from residences as commercial trash bin pick-up service can be a noise nuisance.

Staff has included Site Plan Condition #13, requiring the trash enclosure to relocated away from the residences, accessible for Burrtec, screened from the right-of-way, include a complementary design aesthetic to the primary building, as well as constructed with pedestrian access, three bin access, a roof/cover with wrought iron bars, and solid metal gates in accordance with the Commercial Design Guidelines.

Elevations
 The fuel dispensing facility and convenience store are oriented towards the north with the main entrance to the building as well as the main fuel canopy facing the same direction. The primary elevation includes an entry tower element, varying wall planes, a lack of roof height variation, partial stone columns, recessed alcoves for landscaping and metal awnings. A rendering of the primary elevation is provided above which Staff finds generally complies with the Commercial Design Guidelines and will complement the design of the new gas station across the street as conditioned. Staff generally supports the design with modifications as follows:
78 2
4 1
7 o Wrap the tower parapet with sufficient height and length to create a full roof element and add roof height variation and design end towers to add roof line variation and screen the rooftop equipment. This may require the addition of wall height variation to these elevations to screen (Site Plan Condition #16).
o Extend the stone height on the sides and add actual wall plane variation a minimum of 24-inches in depth for the pop outs as the floor plan does not indicate true variation (Site Plan Condition #17).
 A canopy design was submitted for the fueling islands, Although the Planning Commission has previously allowed fuel canopy roofs to include the corporate architecture and designs of the various fuel companies, at a minimum the fuel canopy supports have been required to include materials and colors that match the associated convenience stores (e.g. stone columns). Therefore, Staff has included Site Plan Condition #19, requiring the canopy to be architecturally integrated with the convenience store building and the stone on the columns to be raised.

Signage
 The applicant is proposing generic front building wall signage and two monument sign locations without details. The wall signage exact placement and square footage shall be a function of the sign permit process. However, any wall signage facing the residents shall be non-illuminated (Site Plan Condition #24). Additionally, the freestanding monument signs must meet Sec. 16-3.22.130 Table 22-3 C-1 signage standards, have a base, frame and cap utilizing complimentary material from the building and shall not exceed 6-feet in overall height and meet setbacks (Site Plan Condition #25).

4. Conditional Use Permit – Fueling Dispensing Facility.

General Information
 The applicant is requesting approval of a Shell brand fuel dispensing facility that consists of eight automobile fueling islands (two pumps per island) located under an approximately 4,600 sq. ft. fueling canopy.
 The fuel dispensing facility and the convenience store will include 24-hour operations. There are no restrictions on the proposed hours of operation as prior entitlements in the City of similar uses did not include restrictions on hours of operation, including the newly opened gas station across Mojave Drive to the north. However, the Commission could consider restrictions due to the proximity of residences to the south. Consequently, at the time of the preparation of this report early in the notification process, Staff has not received any communication or comments from the public.
79 2
4 1
7  Fuel dispensing facilities are listed as a Conditional Use within the underlying C-1 (Neighborhood Service Commercial) Zoning District. The proposal is located on the corner of a signalized intersection (which is preferable due to accessibility, visibility, and vehicle traffic). The location is advantageous for the use.

Planning Commission Policy – New Gas Stations
 At the January 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a Policy (Resolution P-21-052, Attachment H, with Applicant comments) for new gas station and car wash placement. This was due to the continued influx of these uses within the City. Therefore, the new Shell gas station is subject to this effective Policy, which includes the three guiding principles as described below.
o A maximum of two gas stations are preferred at any single intersection.

Staff Comment: A new 76 gas station exists at the northwest corner, therefore the proposed fueling facility will meet this criterion and capture different flows of traffic on the northwest corner. o Gas stations shall not be located within 300-feet of a residential zoned property as measured from property lines unless mitigated properly for noise, traffic and glare.

Staff Comment: There are residences directly to the rear of the property within 300-feet, however, the applicant has mitigated the physical placement of the gas station with a large 50’ partially landscaped buffer to the rear, an 8-foot high wall imposed by the Development Code, the building facing away from the residences and the fueling islands located between the building and the street.

The Commission must determine if this mitigation is satisfactory. o All gas station Conditional Use Permit applications shall include a market research study that analyses the feasibility of the use.

Staff Comment: A market research study has been provided (Attachment I) demonstrating that the local and pass-through traffic, local population and local employment can support the proposed gas station without impacts to the overall City.

5. Conditional Use Permit – Alcohol Sales.

General Information
 The applicant is proposing beer and wine sales for off-site consumption in conjunction with the proposed fuel dispensing facility and associated convenience store. Alcohol sales such as this within the C-1 Zone District are 80 2
4 1
7 conditionally permitted based upon the proposal being for off-site consumption.

Additionally, as discussed below, the subject proposal is located within a census tract that currently has an overconcentration of off-site alcohol licenses.

Overconcentration
 The underlying census tract (99.16) has an overconcentration of alcohol sales based upon California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) allowances which permit 4 off-sale licenses, whereas 4 currently exist.

However, pursuant to Section 16-3.07.020(a)(2)(i)(b) of the Development Code the Planning Commission may make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (FOPCN) because the sales are associated with a fuel dispensing facility and limited to beer and wine only.
 Section 16-3.07.020(a)(3)(i)(b) of the Development Code allows the Planning Commission to approve the proposed beer and wine sales in light of the proposed location being within 600 ft. of residential property, providing no more than 10% of the retail display area is devoted to alcoholic beverages.

Therefore, should the Planning Commission find that beer & wine sales at this location will serve the public convenience or necessity, Staff has included Alcohol Sales Conditional Use Permit Conditions 4 & 5 in order to ensure compliance with all relevant sections of the Development Code, including display area, operating standards, and single serve beverage restrictions.  Staff finds that due to the site being located at the intersection of Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road, both Arterial roadways within an initiative area that allows for commercial with a CUP, the proposal will serve the public convenience and should not create a public nuisance to the neighboring residences as conditioned. Additionally, measures such as limited display area, alcohol advertising restrictions, prohibited single-serve alcoholic beverages, sufficient lighting, and maintenance measures are in place pursuant to standard requirements of the Development Code (Conditional Use Permit Condition #4 & #5), which aim to prevent the subject use from becoming a public nuisance. Appropriate findings have been included in the subject Resolution No. P-22-019 (Attachment E) should the Planning Commission concur with Staff’s assessment. However, if the Planning Commission does not concur with this assessment, then the FOPCN shall not be made and the CUP would need to be denied.

6. Tentative Parcel Map
General Information
 The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20564 to create two parcels from one undeveloped 5.22-acre parcel, would create one 1.27-acre parcel for the gas Station (Parcel 2) and one 3.95-acre parcel for the future development (Parcel 1). Both parcels meet all development standards for size, length and width according to the Title 16 Development Code and both parcels have appropriate 81 2
4 1
7 roadway access and means to reach existing utilities. Both parcels are partially disturbed and both are undeveloped at this time. The proposed development on Parcel Two will require Parcel Map recordation.

7. Commercial Design Guideline Compliance:

1. Site Planning and Design
a. Site Grading: The proposal will primarily follow the graded contours of the site and a large drainage ditch will be modified underground.
b. Buffers: A large 50-foot easement and landscape buffer consisting of numerous 24-inch box trees and an 8-ft wall separate the residences from the building. c. Off-Site Connections: Vehicular connections are provided to Mojave Drive and Amargosa Road and pedestrians have direct access to the frontage roadways. d. Plaza, Courtyards, Patios, Arcades: Not applicable due to the proposed land use. e. Pedestrian Access: Accessible pedestrian access from the frontage roadway is provided to the building entrance.
f. Cart Return: N/A
g. Loading and Delivery: The loading and delivery area is not identified but a very wide area exists at the west side of the building. Due to residences, the loading area shall not be at the rear of the building.
h. Landscaping: All landscape planters are in accordance with the Development Code and are planted with minimum 24” box trees. Enhanced landscaping with trees will be required within the buffer.
i. Parking Lot Area Planting: Landscape fingers and planters are provided as required by Code as conditioned.
j. Paving Treatment: Enhanced paving is not shown, but will be required at the main drive entrances, along pedestrian paths of travel at the front of the store. k. Parking and Circulation: The site provides adequate vehicular and truck access and does not include unnecessary driveway entrances, but contains one short dead end drive aisle.
l. Project Entry Design: Appropriate landscaping will be required at the front corner and both entrances have sufficient entry landscaping and landscaping along the street in front of the sidewalk.
m. Screening of Utility Equipment: If necessary, the site has large planter areas to accommodate and screen utility equipment and is conditioned for screening of all equipment. Healy Units will not be located along the street. n. Trash and Recycling Enclosures: The proposed trash enclosure is located away from street frontage with adequate access from the buildings as conditioned. The enclosure however is too close to the residences and is not accessible for Burrtec. o. Exterior Light Design: Parking area and wall lighting are required to be architecturally compatible with the main structure and theme of the buildings, as required by Conditions of Approval.

2. Building Design
a. Continuity: The proposal compliments the surrounding development, including the new gas station as conditioned.
b. Massing: A tower element at the entrance of the building provides variation in the wall plane and height, but additionally wall plane variation is required. 82 2
4 1
7 c. Scale: The proposed “human” scaled building uses the multiple level façade projections, material changes, and awnings to reduce the buildings scale. But additional wall pop-outs will be required.
d. Roof Forms and Parapets: Varying wall planes and heights prevent long, unbroken horizontal lines, and metal awnings provide roof overhangs. The proposed design will conceal views of rooftop equipment from the street as conditioned for additional wall height and end towers.
e. Roof Drains: Roof drains and/or overflow scuppers are not visible on the elevations, and drains or downspouts cannot be visible per the Conditions of Approval.
f. Sides and Backs of Buildings: Material changes and architectural elements are provided on all sides of the building as conditioned.
g. Windows and Doors: Anodized aluminum at the doors and windows compliment the metal canopy design while multiple material changes are provided on building elevations visible from the street.
h. Awnings and Umbrellas: Panton red colored awnings are proposed that provides an architectural treatment to the elevations visible from the street. i. Arches, Porches and Covered Walkways: N/A
j. Building Materials and Texture: The building has a variety of materials that improve the appearance of the building and add to its architectural theme, including stone, metal awnings, and colored stucco.
k. Colors: The proposed color palette is primarily beige with contrasting accent colors on the tower, stone and window designs that enhance the architectural theme. l. Signage: The signage compliments the building and the monument signs will be required to match the building as conditioned.

Surrounding Uses and Land Use Districts
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Specific
Plan
Site Vacant Low Density
Residential R-1 N/A
North Gas Station/
Storage facility
Low Density
Residential R-1 N/A
South Residences Low Density
Residential R-1 N/A
East Vacant Commercial C-1 N/A
West Residences Low Density
Residential R-1 N/A
Number of Radius Letters
57 Attachments:

Attachment A – Conditional Use Permit (Initiative Area) Resolution P-22-016 - Denying Attachment B –Conditional Use Permit (Initiative Area) Resolution P-22-016 - Approving Attachment C - Site Plan Resolution P-22-017
Attachment D – Conditional Use Permit (Fuel Dispensing) Resolution P-22-018 Attachment E – Conditional Use Permit (Beer and Wine Sales) Resolution P-22-019 83 2
4 1
7 Attachment F – Tentative Parcel Map Resolution P-22-020 Attachment G – Agency Comments
Attachment H – Car Wash & Gas Station Policy
Attachment I – Market Research Study
Attachment J – Noise Study
Attachment K – Traffic Study
Attachment L – Plans and Location Aerial
84