9 Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-3.
10 Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-1.
11 Victorville General Plan 2030; Figure S-3 “Slope H azard”, 2008. Page S-8.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 34
According to the 2008 General Plan EIR, subsidence from groundwater withdrawal in the Planning Area is considered unlikely. Pumping of area water wells is not expected to affect the aquifer sufficiently to cause subsidence in the area. The V ictor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority’s (VVWRA) three treatment plants and the City of Adelanto recharge water into the local aquifer. Based on the City General Plan EIR page 5. 6-512 , subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in the Planning Area is considered unlik ely. Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City S taff would ensure no significant impacts would occur.
Given the characteristics of the geologic unit which the Project Site is located on, compliance with the 2019 California Building Code, and review/appro val of the proposed grading plan by the Victorville City Engineer shall ensure that signifi cant impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction do not occu r. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. Any project within the area of Southern California shall meet the most current California Building Code standards to minimize the potential impact caused by an earthquake. Therefore, the potential for instability occurring at this Project Site is less than significant with pro per construction methods and development standards as defined in the City’s Municipal Code a nd the current California Building Code regulations. Therefore, no impacts are identified o r anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact . Expansive (or shrink-swell) soil behavior is attr ibutable to the water-holding capacity of clay minerals and can adversely affect the structural integrity of facilities including underground pipelines. According to the G eotechnical Investigations, a sample of the subsurface soil was tested for expansive potential and test results identified an expansion index of 0, which indicates very low expansion potential. The Final Geotechnical Investigation and recommendations are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The Proposed Project shall also adhere to 2019 California Building Code. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact . The Proposed Project will connect to the existing sewer system (eight-inch sewer line) along the east portion of the Project Site. The use of septic tanks would not occur on Project Site.
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed at the Project Site.
No impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated . BCR Consulting’s November 20, 2019 report includes a letter from Western Science Center documenting the results of a paleontological resources records search conducted for the Proposed Project. The letter states that the geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entire ly as old alluvial deposits dating from the Pleistocene epoch. Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be of high paleontological value, and while the Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1-mile radius, there are numerous localities across southe rn California found in similarly mapped sediments. Pleistocene alluvial units are known to contain extinct megafauna remains including those associated with mastodon ( Mammut pacificus ), mammoth ( Mammuthus columbi ), saber-tooth cat ( Smilodon fatalis ), ancient horse ( Equus sp. ), camel ( Camelops hesternus ), and many more.
Fossil specimen recovered from the Project Site wou ld be considered scientifically significant.
Monitoring of these excavations is recommended and sampling of the back dirt may yield additional evidence of small fragments or specimens . Therefore, to ensure potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to a less tha n significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
12 http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lafco/proposals/3082/3082_ede_draft_eir.pdf Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 35
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units and may uncover paleontological resources. The project will therefore be subjected to a paleontological monitoring program designed to meet the standards, policies, a nd guidelines of the San Bernardino County Museum Department of Earth Sciences for excavations that would impact older Quaternary alluvium. The program requi rements would be based on the depth of older alluvium and final project design. The required monitoring program shall be submitted to the City of Victorville prior to th e issuance of a permit for any ground disturbing activities, subject to review and approv al by the Zoning Administrator or their designee.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either direct ly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regu lation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . According to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, when making a determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions, the “lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a partic ular project, whether to (1) use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use.” Moreover, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides that “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts” on the conditio n that “the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
The Project Site is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB encompasses the desert potion of San Bernardino County. The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the City of Victorville that includes the project area. To assist local agencies in determining if a project’s emissions could pose a significant threat to air quality, the MDAQMD has prepared the CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016. The air and dust emissions from the construction and operational use of the Proposed Project were evaluated and compared to the MDAQMD air quality thresholds to determine significance (refer to Section III.).
Additionally, the City of Victorville contribute s to a regional partnership with the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG). The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan identifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, identifies the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce the GHG emissions, and identifies local measures that were selected by the SBCOG to reduce GHG emissions and to achieve the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan’s identified GHG reduction target.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 36
Construction and Operational Emissions
Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Many gases make up the group of pollutants that contribute to global climate cha nge. However, three gases are currently evaluated and represent the highest concertation of greenhouse gases (GHGs): Carbon dioxide (CO 2), Methane (CH 4), and Nitrous oxide (N 2O). MDAQMD provides guidance methods and/or Emission Factors that are used for evaluating a pro ject’s emissions in relation to the thresholds.
A threshold of 100,000 MTCO 2e per year has been adopted by MDAQMD. The modeled emissions anticipated from the Proposed Project during both construction and operational phases, are compared to the MDAQMD threshold and shown below in Table 9 and Table 10. Compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan ensures that development of new residential and commercial build ings include high energy-efficiency standards such as use of renewable energy source an d management of facilities to reduce emissions due to the use of electricity and natural gas.
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project are not anticipated to exceed the MDAQMD’s GHG emissions threshold.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environme nt. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 9
Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO 2 CH 4 N20
Demolition 8.7 0.0 0.0
Site Preparation 52.0 0.0 0.0
Grading 209. 4 0.1 0.0
Building Construction 76.4 0.0 0.0
Paving 57.5 0.0 0.0
Architectural Coating 3.2 0.0 0.0
Total MTCO 2e 986.5
MDAQMD GHG Emissions Threshold 100,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions
Table 10
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO
2 CH 4 N 20
Area 4.6 0.0 0.0
Energy 1,204.6 0.1 0.0
Mobile 8,975.0 0.5 0.6
Waste 156.7 9.3 0.0
Water 281.9 2.2 0.0
Total MTCO 2e 11,082. 5
MDAQMD GHG Emissions
Threshold 100,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 37
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law establishes a limit on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the sta te of California to reduce state-wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Cali fornia Assembly and Senate expanded upon AB 32 with Senate Bill (SB) 32, which mandates a 40 % reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 (California Legislative Information, 2016). In January 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a plan (SB 32 Scop ing Plan1) that charted a path towards the GHG reduction goal using all technologically fe asible and cost-effective means (CARB, 2017). 13 In response to these initiatives, an informal project partnership, led by the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG), compiled a GHG emis sions inventory and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 25 Partnership Cities of San Bernardino County, which includes the City of Victorville.
Under the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City works with regional agencies to ensure greenhouse gases are re duced. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Regional Gr eenhouse Gas Reduction Plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, AB 32, and SB 32 with the implementation of the following mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appl icant/developer shall complete a current Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in accordance with the City’s adopted version of the San Bernardino County Region al Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2021, while achieving the minimum number of po ints necessary to comply with the City of Victorville Greenhouse Gas reductions goals.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2
To the extent feasible, the City of Victorville Pla nning Department shall verify incorporation of the identified Screening Table Mea sures within the Project building plans/site designs and/or verify compliance with an updated version of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Screening Table prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
13 San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2021. Page ES-1 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 38
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard of excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X
Explanations:
a) No Impact. Post-construction activities of the proposed devel opment would include standard maintenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc.) which would not require the routine transport or use of hazardous materials at the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would be subject to the Nation al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Requirements of the pe rmit include development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Preventio n Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with construction activities and 2) iden tify, construct, and implement storm water pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and abate pollutants.
The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated May 17, 2021, was prepared for the Proposed Project by DRC Engineering and is available for review at the City. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of County of San Bernardino Stormw ater and Runoff Management and Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 39
Discharge Controls. Implementation of the WQMP is e nforceable under the County of San Bernardino Stormwater and Runoff Management and Dis charge Controls. Review and approval of the WQMP would ensure that all potential polluta nts of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project Site.
According to the WQMP, the Proposed Project does not include uses that could pose a high threat to water quality, including groundwater quality, wh ich cannot be treated by the proposed bioretention basin. Less than significant impacts a re identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous or toxic materials transported in associa tion with construction of the Project may include items such as oils, paints, and fuels. All materials required during construction would be kept in compliance wit h State and local regulations. Post- construction activities would include standard main tenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc .) Components of the Proposed Project that may involve potential impacts from hazardous materials include the gas station, and underground storage tanks (USTs). A permit to operate a UST sys tem is required per California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, California Health and Safety Code Section (25280- 25299.8). These regulations mandate the testing and frequent inspections of the UST facilities.
The Project Applicant would be required to prepare a Spill Contingency Plan to be filed with the County of San Bernardino Hazardous Materials Department. All operations of the fueling station and related USTs would be required to comply with all federal, state and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. With implementation of required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for material handling, and complia nce with all other applicable regulations, potential impacts from the use of hazardous materials is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. No existing or known proposed schools occur within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest school is Lomitas Elementary Scho ol, located approximately 0.40-mile northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Propo sed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or known proposed schoo l. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Su bstances Control EnviroStor (accessed 8/5/2021), the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
14 Therefore, no impacts are identified or
anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. The Project Site is located approximately six (6) miles north of the Hesperia Airport.
The General Plan does not identify the Project Site within an airport hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard related to airport land uses for people residing or working in the area. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) No Impact. According to the City General Plan Figure S-5, Bear Valley Road is designated as an evacuation route throughout the City
15 . During construction the contractor would be requi red to
14 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myad dress=victorville Accessed August 5, 2021. 15 City of Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-19
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 40
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency ve hicles as required by the City. Post construction activities at the site would not inter fere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue and would be maintained for ingress/egress at all times. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
g) No Impact. The Project site is vacant and is surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire r isks, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the unc ontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dis charge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or i nterfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- o r off-site; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite; X iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or;
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a wa ter quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 41
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incor porated. The Proposed Project consists of commercial, retail, office, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately
34.74 acres. The Proposed Project would disturb mor e than one acre and therefore would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina tion System (NPDES) permit requirements.
The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State’s General Constr uction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activities that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP i s to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed Project has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Victorville. The WQMP was prepared to meet NPDES Area Wide Stormwater Program requirements.
Mandatory compliance with the Proposed Project’s W QMP as approved by the City, in addition to compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, would ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately tr eated prior to being discharged from the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Prop osed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements w ith the inclusion of the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure WTR-1
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain coverage under the statewide general NPDES permit for control of const ruction and post-construction related storm water in accordance with the requirem ents of the Small MS4 General Permit. In addition, the applicant shall:
• Prepare a project specific Storm Water Pollutio n Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required in the NPDES permit and shall identify site-specific erosion and sediment control best management practices that will be implemented; • The SWPPP shall be applicable to all areas of the project site including construction areas, access roads to and through the site, and staging and stockpile areas; • Temporary best management practices for all comp onents of the project must be implemented until such time as permanent post-const ruction best management practices are in place and functioning; and
• All excess sediment excavated as part of the Project that is not used onsite should be stockpiled in a location such that it will not be transported by wind or water into a surface water. An adequate combination of sediment and erosion control BMPs must be implemented and maintained to temporarily stabilize all stockpiled sediment until such time that it is reused and/or permanently stabilized.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 42
Mitigation Measure WTR-2
The applicant/developer shall prepare and implement a comprehensive Spill Prevention and Response Plan for the Project, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer (or their designee) prior to the issuance of any associated building or grading permit. This plan should outline the site-specific monitoring requirements and list the best management practices necessary to prevent hazardous material spills or to contain and cleanup a hazardous material spill, should one occur.
b) No Impact. The Project Site is located within the service area of Victorville Water District (VWD).
As stated in the 2020 Victorville Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), VWD is located in the southwest region of San Bernardino County, California. VWD lies north of the San Bernardino Mountains in the Mojave Desert, approximately 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles. VWD provides water services to approximately 36,700 cus tomer connections, serving a population of approximately 127,700 within its 85 square mile service area. In 2020, VWD had a total of 36,673 connections and produced 21,865 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water and 722 AFY of RW. 16
According to the UWMP, during a multiple dry-year period, VWD’s total water supply is projected to be 32,699 acre-feet (AF) by 2045, while the total water demand is projected to be 32,699 AF in the same year, resulting in neither surplus or deficit.
17 According to DCR Engineering Inc, the Proposed
Project, which consists of commercial, retail, offi ce, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres (18.67 acres use would be residential and 16.07 acres use would be commercial) is anticipated to result in a total water demand of 151 AF per year on average. The change in land use designation/zoning would not result in a significant increase in projected water demand at the Project Site which was previously approved for Office/Business Park uses. Based on the UWMP conclusions which include the City’s General Plan land use data, the VWD will have sufficient water to supply the Proposed Project. As such, the Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede substantial groundwater management of the basin. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact.
i-iv. DRC Engineering, Inc. completed a Water Quali ty Management Plan (WQMP) dated May 12, 2021 and Preliminary Hydrology Report for the P roposed Project dated May 17, 2021; both are available for review at the City offices. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, in the existing condition, the Project Site is currently mass graded as part of the previously approved Parcel Map No. 17603 and the en tire site drains northeasterly toward 2nd Avenue. The flows are picked up by a 14’ wide City standard drawing D-02 catch basin at a sump in 2nd Avenue near the northeast corner. The catch basin connects to the existing double 48” corrugated steel pipes across 2nd Avenue and flowing to the east. There are two master-planned storm drain box culverts constructed to accept off-site flows and onsite flows. There is a 5’x4’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) that is designed to accept the off-site flows from west of 3rd Avenue, that passes through the subject property with discharge to the north into the single-family subdivision. The s econd master-planned storm drain is an 8’x4’ RCB culvert that is designed to accept off-si te flows from south of Bear Valley Road and flows north through the subject property. The f acility is designed to accept the runoff generated by the Project Site.
16 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 1-4 17 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-1: Supply and Demand Comparison. Page 7-3 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 43
As stated in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the proposed development will be consistent with the existing condition in terms of the overall drainage pattern. The site drains to the northeast corner of the site and will use the existing City-maintained box-culvert storm drain that passes through the site from Bear Valley Road north to where is crosses 2nd Avenue.
In the proposed condition, the site can break down into four distinctive drainage areas.
Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the propos ed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, three drive-thru fast-food resta urant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast -food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a mediation garden, parking lots and landscaping planters. Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- story storage building a nd single story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high-density residential area (apartments) access drives, parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infil tration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site and crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total130. 63 cubic feet second runoff for a 100-year storm and 72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Therefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224 cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff.
Additionally, there are no streams or rivers on, o r in the vicinity of, the Project Site. With adherence to a Final WQMP approved by the City of Victorville, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing dra inage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would re sult in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. No significant adverse im pacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact . As shown on Figure S-2: Flood Hazards Map of the of the General Plan, the Proposed Project is within Zone X. Areas within Zone X are s ubject to flooding in the event of a 500-year flood, are areas subject to a 100-year flood with average floodwater depths anticipated to be less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and are areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood. Therefore, the Proposed Pr oject is not anticipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as no flood hazards traverse the project area, nor is the Project Site subject to inundation by seiche or mudflow hazards. Due to the Project Site’s location in the High Desert, there are no impacts related to tsunamis. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. There is no sustainable groundwater management pla n in the area, although the underlying groundwater basin is adjudicated. Water supply will be provided by the Victorville Water District and that agency is a party to the adjudication and reports to the Watermaster. The Proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 44
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less T
han
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Explanations:
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project consist of commercial, retail, office, self-storage, and multi- family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres. The Project includes approximately 230,632 square feet of commercial, retail, office and self-storage uses on 16.07 acres, and up to 376 multi-family residential dwelling units on 18.67 acres with a density of 20.14dwelling units per acre. Similar uses are existing adjacent to the Pro ject Site and therefore the Proposed Project would provide uses consistent with development in t his area of the City. There would be no division of an established community, but expansion of similar uses in the area. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project will require approval a Genera l Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current General Plan land use designation of Co mmercial (C) to Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation for a mixed-use development, and a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone. Surrounding land uses include residential development, commercial uses, and institutional uses (e.g. schools and hospitals). The proposed mixed-use development woul d be consistent with existing uses in the area and would provide for a continuation of and ex pansion in services to both residents and workers in the area. With approval of the GPA and CZ, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Pan and would not cause a signific ant environmental impact as all surrounding uses are designated for or developed with similar uses. There would be no anticipated impacts to adjacent developments. Therefore, no impacts are id entified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mi neral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Explanations:
a,b) No Impact . According to City of Victorville General Plan Figure RE-1, the Project Site occurs in the MRZ-3a Zone. MRZ-3a areas are defined as containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Further exploration work within these areas could Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 45
result in the reclassification of specific localities into MRZ-2A or MRZ-2b categories. However, the Project Site and vicinity are not designated in the General Plan for mining. Furthermore the size of the Project Site, and the existing surrounding uses would prohibit the use of the Project Site for mining of any mineral resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource or the loss mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the reside nts of the state. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
XIII. NOISE. Would the proposal result in :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a p rivate airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A Noise Impact Analysis dated September 28,2021 was prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is on file with the City for review. The report is summarized herein. Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it cause s actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithm ic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
The Noise Element of Victorville General Plan identifies hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches and sensitive wildlife habitats as being sensitive to noise.
Excessive levels of noise can
damage human physical health, psychological stabili ty, social cohesion, property values, and economic productivity. The control of noise, therefore, is an essential component in creating a safe, compatible, and productive environment.
Long-term noise level measurements taken for the analysis were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. A description of the location of each sensitive receptor at which measurements were collected is provided below.
R1:Location R1 represents the existing noise sensit ive residence at 16595 Jasmine Street, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site. R1 was placed at the private outdoor living areas Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 46
(backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2:Location R2 represents the Victor Elementary School District building at 12219 2 nd Avenue, approximately 212 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R3:Location R3 represents the Desert Valley Hospita l at 16850 Bear Valley Road, approximately 115 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L2, is used t o describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4:Location R4 represents the 20 High Desert Funera l Chapel & Cremation at 16545 Bear Valley Road, approximately 190 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 was placed at the building façade.
A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R5:Location R5 represents the existing noise sensit ive residence at 12244 3 rd Avenue, approximately 111 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R5 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used t o describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Construction Noise
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Even though the site is vacant and graded, this analysis assumes that some site preparation and grading will be required as part of the Project construction.
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project Site boundary) to each receiver location. According to the noise analysis completed, the construction noise levels are expected to range fro m 58.6 to 75.4 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 70.6 to 75.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
To evaluate whether the Proposed Project will gener ate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during co nstruction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 47
Operational Noise
The operational noise analysis is intended to descr ibe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: roof-top air condi tioning units, drive-thru speakerphones, trash enclosure activity, parking lot activity, and gas station activity.
The multi-family residential land use
is considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use. However, the proposed multi-family residential land use will experience normally acceptable exterior noise levels of ranging from 56.8 to 64.7 dBA CNEL. For normally acceptable exterior noise levels, the Land Use Compatibility Standards indicate that the land use is satisfactory, based upon the a ssumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insultation requirements.
Table 11
Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location 1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA
Leq) 2
Noise Level
Standards
(dBA Leq) 3
Noise Level
Standards
Exceeded? 4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 46.6 38.3 65 55 No No
R2 52.2 39.0 65 55 No No
R3 52.7 48.5 65 55 No No
R4 50.9 48.5 65 55 No No
R5 53.7 42.4 65 55 No No
MF1 48.2 38.1 65 55 No No
MF2 47.5 35.1 65 55 No No
MF3 60.5 50.2 65 55 No No
MF4 57.3 43.6 65 55 No No
MF5 63.8 48.8 65 55 No No
MF6 64.9 52.7 65 55 No No
Reference: Victorville Connection: Noise Impact Analysis
Using the reference noise levels to represent the Proposed Project operations, Urban Crossroads calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project Site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. As shown, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 46.6 to 53.7 dBA Leq. The daytime hourly noise levels at the future on-site Project receiver locations are expected to range from 47.5 to 64.9 dBA Leq. The Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.3 to 48.5 dBA Leq. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the future on-site Project receiver locations are expected to range from 35.1 to 52.7 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity.
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Victorville exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. The operational noise levels associated with the Proposed Project will satisfy the City of Victorville 65 dBA Leq daytime and 55 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 48
Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. To analyze vibration impact s originating from the operation and construction of vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual , (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage were used in the noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations.
The nearest noise sensitive buildings to the Projec t site are residential structures such a tract homes with a maximum acceptable continuous vibratio n threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec). At distances ranging from 47 to 212 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.004 t o 0.035 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PP V (in/sec) for older residential buildings, the typical Project construction vibration levels will satisfy the building damage thresholds at all receiver locations. In addition, the typical construction vi bration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries. The impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The Project Site is located outside of an airport zone. The Project Site is located approximately six (6) miles north from the nearest airport which is identified as the Hesperia Airport.
Additionally, the development of the Proposed Project may cause short-term noise level increases during construction, but during operations shall not exceed the City’s residential standard of noise levels up to 60 decibels (dB). Therefore, no signif icant impacts are identified for airport land use plan or within the vicinity of any public or private airstrip that would be affected.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth i n an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 49
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project includes 376 dwelling units on an approximately 18.67-acre parcel. The Proposed Project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C) to Mixed- Use (MU) to allow for a mixed-use development, and a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone. Under the existing zoning of C-2T, residential uses are not permitted. Land uses and development standards are outlined by the Planned Unit Development itself which vary with each existing and future PUD.
The General Plan states that there is approximatel y 3.40 persons per household in the City of Victorville. The Proposed Project would therefore g enerate an estimated population of approximately 1,278 persons with approval of the PU D. Buildout of the 18.67 acres under the current General Plan and zoning designations at the maximum allowable use, would result in a population increase of approximately zero as no residential is allowed in the C-2T zone.
An evaluation of potential air quality impacts rela ted to the buildout under the current General Plan and the Proposed Project is presented in Section III Air Quality. Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate operational emissions associated with the current General Plan Land Use designations and with the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, operational impacts resulting from either development under the existing General Plan Land Us e designations or the Proposed Project would not exceed MDAQMD thresholds. Consequently, t he change in land use designations/zoning along with the increased popula tion would not result in a conflict or obstruction to the implementation of the AQMP .
Sections XIII (Noise), XV (Public Services), XVI (T ransportation) and XVIX (Utilities and Service Systems) provide evaluations of the of the Proposed Project’s potential impacts in the areas of noise-generation, vehicular traffic and public serv ices and utility demand impacts from the PUD which includes the residential component (populatio n of 1,278). There would be no impacts to future residences from project-generated noise exce eding the City’s standards. No impacts associated with trip generation or vehicle miles travelled would exceed thresholds; development of the site with 100% commercial would result in a greater number of trips than the PUD. It was determined that sufficient capacity exists in the e xisting and projected infrastructure systems to meet the demands of the Proposed Project, and that the payment of development impact fees would provide the financial means for public servic es to continue serving the site as developed.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are ident ified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact . The Project Site currently vacant. The Proposed Project would provide 376 multi-family dwelling units and would not reduce the number of e xisting housing units, displace people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 50
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need f or new or physically altered governmental facilities, the con struction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? ( X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Explanations:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided to the area by the City of Victorville Fire Department. The closest fire station to the Project Site is located at 17008 Silica Drive, Victorville, approximately 0.45 mile northeast of the Project Site. The Proposed Project is required to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including type and building construction, fire sprinklers, and paved fire access. Building plans will be reviewed and approved by the City and the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of permits. In addition to customers of the commercial uses, the Proposed Proj ect would accommodate approximately 1,278 residents (based on 3.40 people per household) and is in an urbanized area that occurs within the existing fire service area. The Proposed Project would be expected to receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided to the City of Victorville by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. The closest station to the Project Site is located at 14455 Civic Drive in the City of Victorville, wh ich is approximately 2.7 miles to the west. The Proposed Project would generate commercial use customers and approximately 1,278 residents (3.40 people per household). According to the City General Plan EIR (2008), the Police Department requests for more officers are based on service needs and officers have been added annually for the last decade based on professional judgment to meet demands. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to law enforcement are identified or anticipated, no mitigation measures are required .
c) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the boundary of the Victor Elementary School (VESD) and the Victor Valley Unio n High School Districts (VVUHSD). The VESD Quadrant Map identifies schools that would provide educational services to the project area including Galileo School of Gifted and Talented Education (GA TE) (15999 Warwick St. ), Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 51
Mojave Vista School of Cultural Arts (16100 Burwood Ave.), Lomitas Community of Learners (Independent Studies) (12571 1st Ave.), Endeavour S chool of Exploration (12403 Ridgecrest Road) and Mountain View Montessori (17000 Silica Ro ad). The VVUHSD Boundaries Map shows that Goodwill High School (12350 Mojave Drive), Victor Valley High School (16500 Mojave Drive) and Lakeview Leadership Academy (1284 Tamari sk Road) provide educational services to the project area. Using the Student Generation R ates (SGR) provided by the VESD , the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approxi mately 341 students. Using the VVUHSD SGR, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 59 students. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 400 students. The methodology of estimated students was calculated by multiplying the proposed 379 dwel lings units by each districts Multi-Family’s SGR (VESD .901 & VVUHSD.1566). Furthermore, the payment of development impact fees will ensure impacts related to school facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the 2008 General Plan EIR, outdoor recreation resources in the City are identified as public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. As of 2008 the City maintained 409.9 acres of parkland, which includes 23 parks and golf courses. The City strives to comply with the 1975 Quimby Act for park s requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The City’s goal is to maintain a ratio of three acres of park land per 1,000 popul ation. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,289 residents (3.40 people per household) and therefore result in the need for approximately three acres of parkland to meet the City’s goal. The Proposed Project ’s residential component includes 2.81 acres of common landscaped open space areas and other private recreational/open space . Additionally, with the payment of development impact fees and, impacts to parks are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project population of 1,289 will increase demand for other public facilities/services, such as libraries, community recreation centers, and/or animal shelters. The Project Proponent would be required to pay the applicable development impact fees, property tax, and utility user tax to provide revenue for these facilities. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect oth er public facilities or directly require the construction of new or modified facilities. No sign ificant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing n eighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 52
Explanations:
a,b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, outdoor recreation resources in the City are identified as public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. As of 2008 t he City maintains 409.9 acres of parkland, which includes 23 parks and golf courses. The City strives to comply with the 1975 Quimby Act for parks requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The City’s goal is to maintain a ratio of three acres of park land per 1,000 population. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,289 residents (3.40 people per household) and therefore result in the ne ed for approximately three acres of parkland to meet the City’s goal. With the provision of 2.81 acres of common open space and recreational facilities for the on-site residents and with the payment of City development impact fees and, impacts to parks and recreational facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION. Would the proposal result in :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or poli cy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b)(1)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometri c design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorp orated. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated December 3, 2020 and updated Traffic Impact Analysis Memorandum dated November 9, 2021 was prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. and are available for review at City offices. The analyses were prepared to provide an assessment of potential traffic impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. The purpose of the TIA was to eva luate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development o f the Proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation syst em operational conditions. As directed by City of Victorville staff, the TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, and Caltrans Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines.
Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley R oad, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue.
Trips generated by the Proposed Project were estima ted based on trip generation rates as provided in the Institute of Transportation Enginee rs (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition, 2017. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 9,347 trips.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 53
TJW Engineering prepared a project traffic study sc oping agreement that was approved by City staff prior to the preparation of the TIA. The agre ement provided an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analy sis methodology. The following study area intersections were analyzed in the TIA:
Table 12
Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 I-15 SB Ramps / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorvill e
2 I-15 NB Ramps / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
3 7th Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
4 3rd Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
5 2nd Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
6 Ridgecrest Rd / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorvill e
7 Hesperia Rd / Jasmine St City of Victorville
8 2nd Ave / Jasmine St City of Victorville
9 2nd Ave / Silica Dr City of Victorville
10 3rd Ave / Silica Dr City of Victorville
11 3rd Ave / Sequoia St City of Victorville
12 2nd Ave / Sequoia St City of Victorville
13 3rd Ave / Project Driveway 1 City of Victorville
14 3rd Ave / Project Driveway 2 City of Victorville
15 Project Driveway 3 / Bear Valley Rd City of Vict orville 16 Project Driveway 4 / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville 17 Project Driveway 5 / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville 18 2nd Ave / Project Driveway 6 City of Victorville
19 2nd Ave / Project Driveway 7 City of Victorville
20 2nd Ave. / Project Driveway 8 City of Victorvill e
Specific off-site impacts and improvements required at the study area intersections have been approved by the City Traffic Engineer and will be included as mitigation measures as noted below.
The Proposed Project would therefore not conflict w ith a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1
The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for implementing all required mitigation measures as outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the subject project on December 3, 2020 by TJW Engineering, inc., as appro ved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Adherence to the subject mitigation measures shall be included in associated street improvement plans and the final map as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Faculties
Within the study area, Class II bike lanes exist on Hesperia Road from Donert Street to Nisqualli Road and on Sequoia Street from Cottonwood Avenue to Hesperia Road.
According to the City of Victorville Non-Motorized Plan and City of Hesperia Non-Motorized Plan, bicycle facilities are planned on the following roadways within the study area:
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 54
Class I Off-Street Bicycle Path
• Jasmine Street west of Hesperia Road
Class II On-Street Bicycle Lanes
• Sequoia Avenue east of Interstate 15
• 7th Avenue south of Bear Valley Road
Class III On-Street Bicycle Share Routes
• 7th Avenue north of Bear Valley Road
• 3rd Avenue north of Bear Valley Road
The City of Victorville Non-Motorized Transportation Plan map shows a Class III Bicycle Path on 3rd Avenue along the western frontage of the Projec t Site and a Class II Bicycle Path is located along Bear Valley Road along the southern frontage of the Project Site.
Existing Public Transit Services
The City of Victorville is served by the Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) which provides bus service throughout the Victor Valley region. The ne arest transit service is VVTA Route 53 and Route 55, with stops at the intersections of Bear V alley Rd/2nd Ave and Jasmine St/2nd Ave.
Route 53 runs between Victor Valley Mall and Victor Valley College primarily via Bear Valley Road. Route 55 runs between Victorville Transfer Ce nter and Victor Valley College primarily via Arrowhead Drive and Bear Valley Road.
According to the Victor Valley Transit Interactive Map, Route 53: “Victor Valley Mall- Victor Valley College” runs along Bear Valley Road and 2nd Avenue . The nearest stop is located on 2nd Avenue east of Project Site. 18
The Proposed Project design features will be reviewed and approved during the City’s Site Plan review process to ensure that the project would not impede existing bicycle paths and transit.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to are id entified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The VMT analysis utilized the San Bernardino County Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM). The SBTAM model was utilized to develop the project VMT per service population to be compared to the City’s General Pla n Buildout scenario VMT per service population to identify project impacts. The City’s General Plan Buildout scenario VMT per service population data was obtained from the online San Be rnardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) screening tool. The project VMT per service population was estimated using SBTAM model runs. The SBTAM socioeconomic database for th e City’s General Plan Buildout (2040) scenario were updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. The project TAZ was utilized to calculate project specific VMT per serv ice population. Model runs were conducted for this updated model after incorporating the project land uses. Since the project is a mixed land use type, Origin/Destination (OD) methods were used as recommended in the City guidelines. Project- generated VMT was extracted from these SBTAM model runs using the origin-destination trip matrix and by multiplying the matrix by the final a ssignment skims. The City’s General Plan Buildout scenario and SBTAM model run’s (as outline d above) VMT per service population are summarized below. As shown in Table 13 below, the p roject’s VMT per service population is
10.2 percent lower than the City’s General Plan Bui ldout scenario VMT per service population.
Therefore, based on the City guidelines, the project will not have significant VMT impacts.
18 Victor Valley Transit Interactive Map. https://vvta.org/interactive-map/ Accessed January 3, 2022.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 55
Table 13
General Plan Buildout (2040) VMT Per Service Population Scenario City of Victorville Project Difference Per centage Difference
General Plan
Buildout
36.2 32.5 (3.7) (10.2%)
Therefore, based on the City guidelines, the projec t will not have significant VMT impacts. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project would not create substantial hazards due to a site design feature or incompatible use. Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue (refer to Figure 1). Development of the driveways a s proposed is not anticipated to result in significant hazards. Discretionary actions for the Proposed Project by the City of Victorville includes approval of the project design. Therefore, no signi ficant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project design features will be review ed and approved during the City’s Site Plan review process to ensure that the project would not impede emergency access throughout the residential developments in the area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in public resources code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California native American Tribe, and that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 56
Explanations:
a) i-ii) Less Than Significant Impact. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) was approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014. AB52 specifies that CEQA projects with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the bill requir es lead agency consultation with California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area. The legislation further re quires that the tribe-requested consultation be completed prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.
BCR Consulting LLC initiated a Cultural Resource As sessment for the Proposed Project in November 2019, which included communication with Native American tribes.
The City of Victorville, as Lead Agency, is respons ible for AB-52 and SB-18 consultation, as applicable. The City sent letters in compliance wit h AB52 to the following tribal representatives the week of December 13, 2021.
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
The City received one response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians received one comment from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians seeking inclusion of specific mitigation measures which have been incorporated herein (see Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes for review and comment shall be contacted, as detailed in CR- 1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance a nd treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by t he archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for r eview and comment for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI and any othe r noticed tribes for review and comment elect to place a monitor on-site.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing repo rts, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBM I and any other noticed tribes for review and comment. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 57
with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment throughout the life of the project.
XVIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater trea tment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. VWD provides water services to approximately 36,700 customer connections, serving a population of approximately 127,700 within its 85 square mile service area.
In 2020, VWD had a total of 36,673 connections and produced 21,865 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water and 722 AFY of RW. 19 The Proposed Project is estimated to require 150 a cre- feet/year which is less than 0.5 percent of VVWD’s 2020 domestic water production. Therefore, no new water facilities would be required to serve the Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project is within the Victor Valley Wa stewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) service area. According to the 2019 Victorville Sew er System Management Plan, the City owns approximately 437 miles of gravity sewers and 1.1 miles of force mains. There are two treatment plants that the City discharges its wastewater to: the VVWRA regional wastewater treatment plant; and the City of Victorville’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWWTP). Approximately 80% of sewer flows are conveyed to the VVWRA regional wastewater treatment plant. The remaining 20% of the collected sewer flows are discharged to the City-owned IWWTP. The Master Plans for sewer and wastewater treatment plants are based on development demands provided for in the General Plans of jurisdictions served. Based on a return flow of 60% of water demands, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 0.5 MGD of wastewater. In 2020, the VVWRA wastewater plant had a capacity of 18 MGD with treated effluent flows to the Mojave River capped at 14 MGD 20
19 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 1-4 20 Lahontan RWQCB May 7-7, 2020 Board Meeting Agenda Item 7 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 58
With a minimum 4 MGD remaining permitted (not desig n) capacity, it is estimated that sufficient capacity remains at the treatment plant to serve the Proposed Project and no new facilities would be required.
As stated in Section X above, the site drains to th e northeast corner of the site and will use the existing City-maintained box-culvert storm drain th at passes through the site from Bear Valley Road north to where is crosses 2nd Avenue. In the proposed condition, the site can break down into four distinctive drainage areas. Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the proposed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, thr ee drive-thru fast-food restaurant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast-food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a mediation garden , parking lots and landscaping planters.
Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- sto ry storage building and single-story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high-density residential area (apartments) access drives, parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infiltration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site a nd crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total 130.63 cubic fe et second runoff for a 100-year storm and
72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Th erefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224 cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff and not impact the existing off-site drainage system.
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrica l service to the project area. The Proposed Project will receive electrical power through conne ction to Southern California Edison’s existing underground power lines along the southern frontage the Project Site and adjacent to Bear Valley Road. Southwest Gas provides natural gas service to the vicinity and the Proposed Project Site.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will receive natural gas from Southwest Gas through connection to the existing line along the eastern frontage and adjacent to Bear Valley Road. Verizon and Charter provide telecommunication services to the vicinity of the area; existing lines are located Bear Valley Road. Residential development of the Proposed Site has been included in the utility providers’ plans and therefore all utilities necessary to serve the project are of sufficient capacity and no expansion would be required.
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant adverse impac ts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. According to the UWMP, during a multiple dry-year period, VWD’s total water supply is projected to be 32,699 acre-feet (AF) by 2045, while the total water demand is projected to be 32,699 AF in the same year, resulting in neither surplus or deficit. 21 According to DCR Engineering
Inc, the Proposed Project consists of commercial, r etail, office, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres, which 18.67 acres use would be residential and 16.07 acres use would be commercial and therefo re anticipated to result in a total water demand of 151 AF per year on average. As such, the Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede substantial groundwater manageme nt of the basin. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
21 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-1: Supply and Demand Comparison. Page 7-3 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 59
c) No Impact. Refer to a) above. No significant adverse impacts to wastewater service capacity are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d,e) Less Than Significant Impact . According to the General Plan, the City of Victor ville disposes sanitary waste at the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, which is operated by the Solid Waste Management Division of the San Bernardino County Public Works Department in accordance with a Waste Disposal Agreement between the City and the County. The Victorville Sanitary Landfill currently operates on 67 acres of a total 491-acre property with a permitted capacity to accept 3,000 tons per day of refuse.
According to the CalRecycle’s estimated solid wast e generation rate, the commercial development portion of the project would generate approximately 0.5 tons of solid waste per day or approximately 1,080.5 pounds per day based on 13 pounds per 1,000 square-feet per day. The residential portion of the Proposed Project is anticipated to generated approximately 1.6 tons per day or 3,234 pounds per day based on 8.6 pounds per dwelling unit per day. In total, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 2.1 tons per day.
22 The total anticipated solid waste would account for approximately 0.06 percent of the permitted 3,000 tons per day of refuse that can be accepted at the Victorville Sanitary Landfill.
The purpose of California Assembly Bill 341 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste from landfills by recycling. It mandates businesses and public entities generating 4-cubic yards or more of trash to establ ish and maintain recycling services. All new construction projects are required to submit a Cons truction and Demolition Solid Waste Management Plan to the City.
As part of the plan, projects are required to esti mate the amount of tonnage to be disposed and diverted during construction. Additionally, projects must provide the amount of waste that will be diverted and disposed of. Disposal/diversion receipts or certifications are required as a part of that summary. Additionally, the Proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. The Act requires that adequate areas be pr ovided for collecting and loading recyclable materials such as paper products, glass, and other recyclables. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project will have a less than significant impact from solid waste resources.
22 CalRcycle, Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/ rates Accessed January 3, 2022.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 60
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or other uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X
a) No Impact. According to the City General Plan Figure S-5, Bear Valley Road is designated as an evacuation route throughout the City 23 . During construction and long-term operation, the contractor would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City of Victorville fire and police. The Proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan identifies natural hazards, which include seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction, along with slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, flooding, and wildland fires. The Project Site is surrounded by urban development. The site terrain is sloping primarily from the Southwest and Southeast corners with a maximum diff erence in elevation of approximately twenty-five (25) feet. Therefore, the Proposed Proj ect is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing project occupants to pollut ant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Site access is planned via two full-access drivewa ys and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full- access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue will serve as the full access points for ingress and egress to the Proposed Project. The Proposed off- site improvements include installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the Project Site eastern western and southern frontages. As stated in Section XIX(a), the Proposed Project will connect to existing utilities and service system infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to require the installation or maintena nce of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporar y ongoing impacts to the environment. No
23 City of Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-19
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 61
significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site terrain is sloping primarily from the Sou thwest and Southeast corners with a maximum difference in elevation of approximately twenty-five (25) feet.
As shown on Figure S-2: Flood Hazards Map of the of the General Plan, the Proposed Project is within Zone X. Areas within Zone X are subject to flooding in the event of a 500-year flood, areas subject to a 100-year flood with average floodwater depths anticipated to be less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from the 100- year flood. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not antic ipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as no flood hazards traverse the project area, nor is the Project Site subject to inundation by downstream flooding or landslides.
The Proposed Project consist of four drainage areas. Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the proposed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, three drive-thru fast-food restaurant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast-food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a med iation garden, parking lots and landscaping planters. Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- story storage building and single-story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high- density residential area (apartments) access drives , parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infiltration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site a nd crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total 130.63 cubic fe et second runoff for a 100-year storm and
72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Therefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 62
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substanti ally degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individua lly limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . A Habitat Assessment dated November 19, 2021 was completed by ELMT Consulting. A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project Site. However, to ensure potential impacts to this species are reduced to a less than significant level, Proposed Project shall adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
BCR Consulting LLC. (BCR Consulting) prepared a Cul tural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project dated November 20, 2019. An archaeological field survey of the Project Site was conducted on September 27, 2019. During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists did not identify any cultural resources within the Project Site boundaries. Excavations and grading for previous (abandoned) construction project have disturbed the entire project. Based on negative findings during the field survey combined with the high level of disturbance, development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in si gnificant impacts to archaeological or historical resources, and no further investigations or monitoring are recommended. There is no evidence that human remains will be identified within the project area, but the presence cannot be completely ruled out. Although BRC Consulting did not indicate the Project Site as sensitive for cultural resources, significant impacts could occur during site earthmoving activities, and as well as input from the SMBMI, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 are recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and CR-1 to CR-2, as provided in this Initial Study, would ensure impacts to biological and cultural resources are less than significant. Therefore, no Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 63
significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact . Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectivel y significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states:
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
As shown herein, both summer and winter season oper ational air quality emissions are below MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in an existing or projected air quality violation. However, to ensure potential impacts related to construction emissions are reduced to a less than significant level, mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-7 shall be implemented.
Additionally, development of the Proposed Project w ill be conditioned to comply with current SCAQMD rules and regulations to minimize impacts to air quality.
The modeled greenhouse gas emissions anticipated fr om the Proposed Project during both construction and operational phases, were compared to the MDAQMD threshold and shown herein in Table 9 and Table 10. Compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as required by mitiga tion measures GHG-1 & GHG-2 ensures that development of new residential and commercial buildings include high energy-efficiency standards such as use of renewable energy source an d management of facilities to reduce emissions due to the use of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, cumulative impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered individually or cumulatively adverse or considerable. Impacts identified in this Initial Study can be reduced to a level of less than significant impact. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The incorporation of design measures, City of Victorville policies, standards, and guidelines and proposed mitigation m easures would ensure that the Proposed Project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on an individual or cumulative basis. Therefore, no si gnificant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 64
REFERENCES
BCR Consulting. Cultural Resource Assessment. November 2019 California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Significant, Earthquakes and Faults. Accessed October 2021. https://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/index.html# California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwa rehouse/index.html?map=mlc California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of The Victorville 7.5’ Quadrangle. Access October 2019. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/Victorville_prelim.pdf California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor; accessed, December 2021.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Victorville Landfill (36-AA-0045). Accessed November 2021.
California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center. Accessed October 9, 2019.
City of Victorville, 2030 General Plan. 2008.
City of Victorville, 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report City of Victorville, Municipal Code
City of Victorville: 2019 Sewer System Management Plan.
DCR Engineering, INC. Water Quality Management Plan. May 12, 2021 DCR Engineering. Preliminary Hydrology Report. May 17, 2021Department of Homeland Security:
FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By City. Accessed December 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=victorville%20#searchresultsanchor ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment. November 19, 2021
Merrell Engineering Company, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. February 2019.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. August 2021.
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2021.
TJW Engineering, Inc. Trip Generation Analysis. November 2021 Victorville Water District: Victorville Water District Urban Water Management Plan. 2020
CITY OF VICTORVILLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California 92392
(760) 955-5135 FAX (760) 245-8250
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Preparation Date: April 27, 2022
Revised: August 3, 2022
Name or Title of Project: General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Site Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00023 (Victor Valley Connection)
Location: North of and abutting Bear Valley Road between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, Victorville, CA 92395 (APN No. 3091-221-03 through 3091-221-10 & 30 91-221-12 through 3091-221-21)
Entity or Person Undertaking Project: Bear Valley Road & 2nd Avenue, LLC; c/o Michael Asheghian; MJM Investment Co., LLC; 12300 Wilshire Blvd #410; Los Angeles, CA 90025
Description of Project: MJM Investment Company, LLC., Applicant, is proposing a mixed-use development, Victorville Connection Project (Project), consisting of commercial, retail, office, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres in the City of Victorville, CA (City), County of San Bernardino. The Project includes approximately 230,632 square feet of commercial, retail, office and self- storage uses on 16.07 acres and 376 multi-family residential dwelling units on 18.67 acres with a density of 20.14 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The Project Site is located in the southeast portio n of the City of Victorville on the north side of B ear Valley Road between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue. The site was previously approved for an office/business park use and was graded by a past o wner with curb cuts and driveway entrances, and utilities installed for a previously anticipated de velopment whose entitlements have expired. The site is currently vacant and traversed with dirt roads.
Statement of Findings: The City of Victorville Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study for this proposed project and has found that there are no adverse environmental impacts to either the man-made or physical environmental setting if the following mitigation measures are implemented in conformance with the Mitigation Monitoring Policy, and does hereby direct staff to file a Notice of Determination, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A copy of the Initial Study and other applicable do cuments used to support the proposed Negative Declaration is available for review at the City of Victorville Planning Division.
Mitigation Measures:
Air Quality Measures:
1. (AQ-1) The Project Proponent shall prepare and s ubmit 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. The most current Dust Control Plan Requirements and Dust Control Plan Submission For are available at
http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/permitting/compliance-forms .
2. (AQ-2) The Project Proponent shall ensure that s ignage compliant with MDAQMD Rule 403 Attachment B is erected at the project site entranc e not later than the commencement of construction.
GPA, PUD, SP, & TPM Case No. PLAN21-00023
Victor Valley Connection
aj
3. (AQ-3) The Project Proponent shall ensure that a water truck is used to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and that water is actively spread during visible dusting episodes to minimize fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand 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.
4. (AQ-4) 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 suspended by local ordinance, rule or project specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
5. (AQ-5) All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-r elated 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.
6. (AQ-6) Obtain MDAQMD permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to internal combustion engines with a manufacture’s maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.
7. (AQ-7) The Project Proponent shall ensure a mini mum duration of 130 days for architectural coating.
Biological Measures:
8. (BIO-1) If Project activities begin during the non-nesting season (non-nesting season is typically from September 16 through December 31), a pre-construction survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist to verify the absence of nesting birds. A qualified biologist shall conduct the pre-activity survey within the Project area (includ ing access routes) and a 300-foot buffer surrounding the Project area, no more than two hours prior to initiating Project activities.
If construction occurs between January 1stand September 15th, a preconstruction clearance survey of the Project site and a 300- foot buffer surrounding the Project area for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the sta rt of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Pre- construction clearance surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance sur vey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer established by the qualified avian biologist. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger no-disturbance buffer may be determined b y the qualified avian biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding ant hropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, typ e and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated GPA, PUD, SP, & TPM Case No. PLAN21-00023
Victor Valley Connection
aj
on a case-by case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A qualified avian shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affec ted by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest o therwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
Cultural Resource Measures:
9. (CR-1) In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foo t buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR- 1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era fi nds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cult ural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
10. (CR-2) If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of the orig in and disposition of remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Count y Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will det ermine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Geology and Soils Measures:
11. (GEO-1) Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial un its and may uncover paleontological resources. The project will therefore be subjected to a paleontological monitoring program designed to meet the standards, policies, and guidelines of the San Bernardino County Museum Department of Earth Sciences for excavations that would impact older Quaternary alluvium. The program requirements would be based on the depth of older alluvium and final project design.
The required monitoring program shall be submitted to the City of Victorville prior to the issuance of a permit for any ground disturbing activities, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or their designee.
GPA, PUD, SP, & TPM Case No. PLAN21-00023
Victor Valley Connection
aj
Greenhouse Gas:
12. (GHG-1) Prior to the issuance of building permi ts, the applicant/developer shall complete a current Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in accordance with the City’s adopted version of the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2021, while achieving the minimum number of points necessary to comply with the City of Victorville Greenhouse Gas reductions goals.
13. (GHG-2) To the extent feasible, the City of Vic torville Planning Department shall verify incorporation of the identified Screening Table Measures within the Project building plans/site designs and/or verify compliance with an updated ve rsion of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Screening Table prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
Hydrology and Water:
14. (WTR-1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit t he applicant shall obtain coverage under the statewide general NPDES permit for control of const ruction and post-construction related storm water in accordance with the requirements of the Small MS4 General Permit. In addition, the applicant shall:
• Prepare a project specific Storm Water Pollution Pr evention Plan (SWPPP) as required in the NPDES permit and shall identify site-specific e rosion and sediment control best management practices that will be implemented;
• The SWPPP shall be applicable to all areas of the project site including construction areas, access roads to and through the site, and staging and stockpile areas; • Temporary best management practices for all compone nts of the project must be implemented until such time as permanent post-construction best management practices are in place and functioning; and
• All excess sediment excavated as part of the Projec t that is not used onsite should be stockpiled in a location such that it will not be transported by wind or water into a surface water. An adequate combination of sediment and eros ion control BMPs must be implemented and maintained to temporarily stabilize all stockpiled sediment until such time that it is reused and/or permanently stabilized.
15. (WTR-2) The applicant/developer shall prepare a nd implement a comprehensive Spill Prevention and Response Plan for the Project, subje ct to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer (or their designee) prior to the issuance of any associated building or grading permit. This plan should outline the site-specific monitoring requirements and list the best management practices necessary to prevent hazardous material spills or to contain and cleanup a hazardous material spill, should one occur.
Transportation:
16. (TRAN-1) The Applicant/Developer shall be respo nsible for implementing all required mitigation measures as outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the subject project on December 3, 2020 by TJW Engineering, inc., as ap proved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Adherence to the subject mitigation measures shall be included in associated street improvement plans and the final map as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
GPA, PUD, SP, & TPM Case No. PLAN21-00023
Victor Valley Connection
aj
Tribal Cultural Resources Measures:
17. (TCR-1) The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes for review and comment sha ll be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resour ces discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment elect to place a monitor on-site.
18. (TCR-2) Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing repo rts, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment throughout the life of the project.
Public Review Period: April 29, 2022 to May 30, 2022.
Tentative Public Hearing Date: June 8, 2022
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 1 March 2022
The following mitigation measures have been identif ied in a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Site Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map (Case No. PLAN21-00023 Victor Valley Connection) The Victorville Valle Connection (Project),consists of commercial, retail, office, s elf-storage, and multi-family residential development and is located North of and abutting Be ar Valley Road between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.
A completed and signed checklist for each measure i ndicates that a measure has been implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring req uirements with respect to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 2 March 2022
Mitigation Measures
Responsible
Part y
Timing of
Compliance
Signature and Date
of C ompliance
Air Quality Measures
1. (AQ-1) The Project Proponent shall prepare and submi t to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control mea sures that will be implemented at the project. The most current Dust C ontrol Plan Requirements and Dust Control Plan Submission For are available at http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/permitting/compliance-forms.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Prior to building
permit issuance
2. (AQ-2) The Project Proponent shall ensure that s ignage compliant with MDAQMD Rule 403 Attachment B is erected at the project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Prior to site
disturbance
3. (AQ-3) The Project Proponent shall ensure that a water truck is used to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and that water is actively spread during visible dusting episodes to minimize fugitiv e dust emissions.
For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical st abilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Implementation on-
going during
construction
4. (AQ-4) 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 n eeded to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing requirement may be suspended by local ordinance, rule or projec t specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Implementation on-
going during
construction
5. (AQ-5) All maintenance and access vehicular road s and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate fugitive dust from vehicula r travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related tr ackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project-related trackout wi thin 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shal l be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Implementation on-
going during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 3 March 2022
6. (AQ-6) Obtain MDAQMD permits for any miscellaneo us process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not limited to internal combustion engines with a manufacture’s maximum continuous rating greater than 50 brake horsepower.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Implementation on-
going during
construction
7. (AQ-7) The Project Proponent shall ensure a mini mum duration of 130 days for architectural coating.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
During project
grading and
construction activities
Biological Measures
8. (BIO-1) If Project activities begin during the non-nesting season (non-nesting season is typically from September 16 through December 31), a pre-construction survey shall be pe rformed by a qualified biologist to verify the absence of nestin g birds. A qualified biologist shall conduct the pre-activity survey wit hin the Project area (including access routes) and a 300-foot buffer sur rounding the Project area, no more than two hours prior to initi ating Project activities.
If construction occurs between January 1stand Septe mber 15th, a preconstruction clearance survey of the Project sit e and a 300- foot buffer surrounding the Project area for nesting bir ds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Pre-construc tion clearance surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evi dence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. The biolog ist conducting the clearance survey shall document the document a nega tive survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impac ts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discov ered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction acti vities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer established by t he qualified avian biologist. Nest buffers are species specific and sh all be at least 100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors. A sma ller or larger no- disturbance buffer may be determined by the qualified avian biologist Project Developer
Project Biologist
Prior to site
disturbance
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 4 March 2022
and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrou nding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between t he nest and the construction activity, type and duration of constru ction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographic al barriers.
These factors will be evaluated on a case-by case b asis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging , fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A qualified avian sh all be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adverse ly affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natura l conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 5 March 2022
Cultural Resource Measures
9. (CR-1) In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeo logist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal inp ut with regards to significance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cult ural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provid ed to SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainde r of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
Project Developer
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project
Archaeologist
Implementation on-
going during
construction
10. (CR-2) If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the C ounty Coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition of remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. I f the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will noti fy the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will det ermine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the per mission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete t he inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Project Developer
Project
Archaeologist
Project Construction
Superintendent
On-going during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 6 March 2022
Geology and Soils Measures
11. (GEO-1) Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensiti ve Pleistocene alluvial units and may uncover paleontological resources. The project will therefore be subjected to a paleontological mo nitoring program designed to meet the standards, policies, and guide lines of the San Bernardino County Museum Department of Earth Scienc es for excavations that would impact older Quaternary allu vium. The program requirements would be based on the depth of older alluvium and final project design. The required monitoring program shall be submitted to the City of Victorville prior to the issuance of a permit for any ground disturbing activities, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or their designee.
Project Developer
City Planner
Prior to site
disturbance
Greenhouse Gas Measures
12. (GHG-1) Prior to the issuance of building permi ts, the applicant/developer shall complete a current Greenh ouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in accordance with the Ci ty’s adopted version of the San Bernardino County Regional Green house Gas Reduction Plan 2021, while achieving the minimum number of points necessary to comply with the City of Victorville Gr eenhouse Gas reductions goals.
Project Developer
Project Architect
Prior to building
permit issuance
13. (GHG-2) To the extent feasible, the City of Vic torville Planning Department shall verify incorporation of the identi fied Screening Table Measures within the Project building plans/si te designs and/or verify compliance with an updated version of the Ci ty’s Greenhouse Gas Screening Table prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
City Planner
Prior to building
permit issuance
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 7 March 2022
Hydrology and Water Quality
14. (WTR-1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit t he applicant shall obtain coverage under the statewide general NPDES p ermit for control of construction and post-construction relat ed storm water in accordance with the requirements of the Small MS4 G eneral Permit.
In addition, the applicant shall:
• Prepare a project specific Storm Water Pollutio n Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required in the NPDES permit and shall i dentify site- specific erosion and sediment control best manageme nt practices that will be implemented;
• The SWPPP shall be applicable to all areas of the project site including construction areas, access roads to and t hrough the site, and staging and stockpile areas;
• Temporary best management practices for all comp onents of the project must be implemented until such time as perm anent post- construction best management practices are in place and functioning; and
All excess sediment excavated as part of the Project that is not used onsite should be stockpiled in a location such that it will not be transported by wind or water into a surface water. An adequate combination of sediment and erosion control BMPs mu st be implemented and maintained to temporarily stabilize all stockpiled sediment until such time that it is reused and/or p ermanently stabilized.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Prior to building
permit issuance
15. (WTR-2) The applicant/developer shall prepare a nd implement a comprehensive Spill Prevention and Response Plan fo r the Project, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer (or their designee) prior to the issuance of any associated building or grading permit. This plan should outline the site-s pecific monitoring requirements and list the best management practices necessary to prevent hazardous material spills or to contain and cleanup a hazardous material spill, sh ould one occur.
Project Construction
Superintendent
Project Developer
Prior to grading or
building permit
issuance
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023
SITE PLAN CASE NO. PLAN21-00023 8 March 2022
Transportation Measures
16. (TRAN-1) The Applicant/Developer shall be respo nsible for implementing all required mitigation measures as ou tlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the subject project on December 3, 2020 by TJW Engineering, inc., as approved by th e City Traffic Engineer. Adherence to the subject mitigation meas ures shall be included in associated street improvement plans and the final map as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Project Developer
City Engineer
Prior to building
permit issuance and
on-going until final
construction
Tribal Cultural Resource Measures
17. (TCR-1)
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Res ources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes for review and comment shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered d uring project implementation, and be provided information regardi ng the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, a s defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monit oring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this P lan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents S MBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment elect to place a monitor on -site.
Project Developer
Project
Archaeologist
Project Construction
Superintendent
On-going during
construction
18. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents c reated as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant a nd Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment throughout the life of the project.
Project Developer
Project
Archaeologist
Project Construction
Superintendent
On-going during
construction
ATTACHMENT L
Special Studies
Special Studies prepared for Case No. PLAN21-00023 include:
• Biological Report
• Habitat Assessment
• Cultural Resources Assessment
• Geotechnical Report
• Noise Impact Analysis
• Preliminary Hydrology Report
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
• Traffic Impact Analysis
• Trip General Analysis
Copies of the noted Special Studies for Case No. PLAN21-00023 are located in digital format at:
https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city-
departments/development/planning/environmental-review-notices
ATTACHMENT M
CDFW Comments
w/Response
1 Letter 1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Alisa Ellsworth May 27, 2022
Comment 1-1:
This is an introductory comment related to CDFW’s role as a Trustee Agency.
Response 1-1:
No response required.
Comment 1-2:
This comment reiterates the Project Description from the IS/MND.
Response 1-2:
No response required.
Comment 1-3:
This comment introduces CDFWs primary areas of conc ern which are provided in detail in subsequent comments.
Response 1-3:
No response required.
Comment 1-4:
This comment states that burrowing owl should have been identified in the habitat assessment letter and in the IS/MND based on nearby known habitat being documented.
Response 1-4:
The 2019 Habitat Assessment noted the presence of C alifornia ground squirrel on the project site and the presence of 15 burrows that could be suitab le for burrowing owl. An inventory of all occupiable burrows during site visits in October 2019 found no sign of burrowing owls occurring on the site. According to the CDBBD, the nearest location of owls was 4 miles to the west. During the September 22, 2021 Habitat Assessment, California ground squirrel were not observed during a comprehensive inventory of the project site. Addi tionally, no burrows suitable for burrowing owls were identified. Due to the growth in vegetat ion over the last two years, there were very limited line-of-sight opportunities for burrowing o wls. Based on ELMT’s assessment of the project site, burrowing owls are considered absent from the project site and no focused surveys were recommended.
2 Comment 1-5:
This comment states that focused surveys for burrow ing owl should be conducted with results being provided to CDFW.
Response 1-5:
See Response to Comment 1.4 above.
Comment 1-6:
This comment questions the accuracy of the presence /absence survey for certain species/habitats due to the time of year the surveys were conducted. Also, no information regarding time of day or climatic conditions present during surveys.
Response 1-6:
ELMT survey on September 22, 2021 was conducted between 7 and 11 am during a mild day with no winds and temperatures in the low 70s degrees F. Site conditions for burrowing owls decreased between 2019 and 2021 (see Response to Comment 1-4) . No owls or sign were observed onsite in 2019 and no owls or sign were observed in 2021.
The site was cleared nearly 15 years ago for an app roved office/business park development with infrastructure installed and lots and streets rough graded. Due to the past removal of the native plant community and the extensive level of surface disturbances, no sensitive plants were identified in 2019 and none were observed in 2021. Sensitive plant species are not expected to occur.
Comment 1-7:
This comment states that focused surveys for burrow ing owl and sensitive plants should be conducted using CDFW Guidelines and Protocols.
Response 1-7:
See Response to Comment 1-6 above.
Comment 1-8:
This comment states that an evaluation of the four western Joshua trees that were documented on- site in 2019 should be included in the ELMT habitat assessment and in the IS/MND.
Response 1-8:
The Department raised concern that the 2019 Habitat Assessment noted the presence of 4 western Joshua Trees at the northwest corner of the project site. The assessment mentioned that these four trees were likely transplanted to the area from els ewhere on the project site during site clearance nearly 15 years ago for an approved office/business park development. However, there was no mention of the condition of the four western Joshua trees in the 2019 assessment. During the 2021 3 assessment, ELMT noted that all four trees were on the ground, none of the trees were rooted in the soils and all four trees were in advanced stages of decay. There was no sign of life or vegetative growth from any of the trees. It was readily apparent that the circa 2006 relocation process for the trees had not been successful and, as a result and that all four trees had died. In 2021, the remaining carcasses were severely decayed, fragmented into several pieces and cannot be considered a viable biological entity. The carcasses provide no conserv ation value or environmental benefit for the species. The City inspected the trees on October 5, 2021 and concurred that the carcasses were not a living Joshua tree as defined by the City’s Deser t Native Plant Protection Regulation and, therefore, did not warrant protection. The attache d photos were taken during the September 22, 2021, site visit.
Comment 1-9:
CDFW requests documentation regarding whether the P roject’s stormflows will be directed to Spring Valley Lake or Mojave River and whether the Project may otherwise require notification of CDFW.
Response 1-9:
A literature review, including looking at various d atabases and current aerials, is a standard practice prior to conducting a field investigation for jurisdictional features. However, as the Department points out, it is only a precursor to co nducting a field investigation. Please read the last paragraph of page 3 of ELMT’s 2021 Habitat Assessment that clearly discusses ELMT’s field investigation. As noted by the 2019 Habitat Assess ment and confirmed by ELMT’s assessment, there are no areas supporting riparian habitat or n atural drainage features on the project site and, therefore, no waters of the U.S. or waters of the State are on the project site.
A Preliminary Hydrology Report dated May 17, 2021 w as prepared for the project by DRC Engineering, Inc. Currently, the site directly disc harges into a City-owned concrete box culvert that passes through the site. After leaving the sit e at 2 nd Avenue, the flows head to the north-
northwest through a combination of natural flowline s and hard-lined storm drains that eventually reach the Mojave River, some 3.5 miles away. The project will have four underground infiltration BMPs for the purpose of low impact development and the capture of the design capture volume for stormwater treatment. All the basins are design ed to ensure that the post-development DMA will meet the Mojave River Watershed guidelines for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification criteria before leaving the site. Refer to “Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan” (PWQMP) for detailed calcu lations of the proposed dual-purpose infiltration/detention basin system.
Phase II of the Mojave River Watershed requires that projects to demonstrate 10-year 24-hour 85th percentile storm event will not result in hydromodi fication. In addition, per City of Victorville’s hydrology guideline, the proposed development must also show that the development does not increase the runoff for the 100-year 1-hour storm e vent. Unit hydrograph calculations for both existing and proposed conditions were prepared for the 10-year 24-hour storm event and 100-year 1-hour storm event demonstrate that the required de tention volume (difference in the pre- developed and post-developed stormwater volume) is captured. Table 3 of the Hydrology Study shows the capacity of each basin to be constructed on-site will capture 100% of flows.
Comment 1-10:
4 CDFW requests a field-based jurisdictional determination prior to concluding no impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdiction.
Response 1-10:
See Response to Comment 1-9 above. Both the 2019 Ha bitat Assessment and the 2021 Habitat Assessment were field-based jurisdictional assessme nts that concluded that the project site supported no waters of the State and no waters of t he U.S. The Preliminary Hydrology Study provides design capture volumes to ensure on-site s torm flows do not reach the Mojave River.
Therefore, no impacts to waters of the State and wa ters of the U.S. will occur from site development. A formal Jurisdictional Delineation was not warranted.
Comment 1-11:
Additional language for BIO-1 is provided and requested to be included in the final IS/MND.
Response 1-11:
CDFW’s requested language for Mitigation Measure BI O-1 will be added to the final IS/MND and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Comment 1-12:
CDFW requests that data be uploaded to the CNDDB fo r any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys.
Response 1-12:
Any such information will be uploaded to CNDDB by ELMT biologists.
Comment 1-13:
CDFW states that the Project would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife and that fees are payable at the filing of the Notice of Determination
Response 1-13:
The City will ensure that the required fees are paid through the San Bernardino County Clerk.
Comments 1-14 & 1-15:
Conclusionary remarks with reference to attachment that is a duplication of the Mitigation Measure BIO-1 language.
Response to 1-14 & 1-15:
No response required.
5 6
7 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
June 9, 2022
Eric Weiss
C
ALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite 220
Ontario, CA 91764
Subject: California Department of Fish and Game’s Comments on the City of Victorville’s IS/MND for the Victorville Connection Project
Dear Mr. Weiss:
Thank you for your comments of the IS/MND and accompanying technical reports. We also acknowledge the Department’s role as California’s Trustee Agency for Fish and Wildlife and as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act. After reviewing your comments, we have the following responses:
Comment:
The Department noted that the 2019 Habitat Assessment and the CNDDB records indicate that the project site has potential suitable burrowing owl habitat and recommend that focused surveys be conducted for this species.
Response:
The 2019 Habitat Assessment noted the presence of California ground squirrel on the project site and the presence of 15 burrows that could be suitable for burrowing owl. An inventory of all occupiable burrows during site visits in October 2019 found no sign of burrowing owls occurring on the site. According to the CNDDB, the nearest location of owls was 4 miles to the west. During the 2021 Habitat Assessment, California ground squirrel were not present onsite during the onsite inventory of the project site and no burrows suitable for burrowing owls were observed . Due to the growth in vegetation over the last two years, there was very limited line-of-sight opportunities for burrowing owls. Based on ELMT’s assessment, burrowing owls are considered absent from the project site.
Comment:
The Department raised concern that the timing of the 2021 Habitat Assessment may not have coincided with the breeding period of burrowing owls, affecting the results of the survey. The timing may have affected the results for sensitive plant species, as well.
June 9, 2022
Response:
ELMT’s survey was conducted between 7 and 11 am during a mild day with no winds and temperatures in the low 70s degrees F. As noted above, site conditions for burrowing owls decreased between 2019 and 2021. No owls or sign was observed onsite in 2019 and no owls or sign were observed in 2021.
It should also be noted that the project site was rough graded in 2007 to remove all vegetation and roads and pads were created to support the previously approved development. Due to the removal of the native plant community and the extensive level of surface disturbances, no sensitive plants were identified in 2019 and none were observed in 2021. Sensitive plant species are not expected to occur.
Comment:
The Department raised concern that the 2019 Habitat Assessment noted the presence of 4 western Joshua Trees at the northwest corner of the project site.
Response:
The assessment mentioned that these four trees were likely transplanted to the area from elsewhere on the project site. However, there was no mention of the condition of the four western Joshua trees at the time of the 2019 assessment. During the 2021 assessment, ELMT noted that all four trees were in broken pieces, laying on the ground and i n advanced stages of decay. None of the pieces were rooted in the soil. There was no sign of life or vegetative growth from any of the trees. It was readily apparent that the relocation process for the trees had not been successful and, as a result, all four trees died. Approximately 10 years later, the remaining carcasses are severely decayed and fragmented into several pieces and cannot be considered a viable biological resource. The carcasses provide no conservation value or environmental benefit for th e species. The City of Victorville inspected the remanence of the trees on October 5, 2021, and concurred that the remaining fragmented carcasses could no longer be described as western Joshua trees and did not warrant protection. The attached photos were taken during the September 22, 2021, site visit.
Comment:
The Department indicated that a desk top review of potential jurisdiction features on the project site is not sufficient to determine that presence or absence of waters of the State and recommended that a field investigation be conducted.
Response:
A literature review, including looking at various databases and current aerials, is a standard practice prior to conducting a field investigation for jurisdictional features. However, as the Department points out, it is only a precursor to conducting a field investigation. Please read the last paragraph of page 3 of ELMT’s 2021 Habitat Assessment that clearly discusses ELMT’s field investigation. As noted by the 2019 Habitat Assessment and confirmed by ELMT’s assessment, there are no areas supporting riparian habitat or natural drainage features on the project site and, therefore, no waters of the U.S. or waters of the State on the project site.
June 9, 2022
Thank you for the suggested edits to Mitigation Measure BIO-1. We’ll incorporate the suggested language into the IS/MND.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D,
ELMT Consulting
Attachment 1: Site Photographs
Victorville Connection – Western Joshua Trees
Looking south from the NW corner of the Victorville Connection site on Bear Valley Road.
All trees are dead, severely desiccated and decayed, disconnected from the ground with no evidence of sexual reproduction (flowering and release of seed) or asexual reproduction.
Victorville Connection – Western Joshua Trees
There is no indication that the Joshua trees survived the relocation process.
All four Joshua trees expired several years ago, leaving only fragmented carcasses that will not contribute to the recovery of the species and have no conservation value .
Letter 1
1-1
1-1
Cont.
1-2
1-2
Cont.
1-3
1-4
1-4
Cont.
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-10
Cont.
1-11
Cont.
1-12
1-13
1-13
Cont.
1-14
1-15
ATTACHMENT N
SWRCC Comments
w/Response
1 Letter 2
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
May 27, 2022
Comment 2-1:
This is an introductory comment stating that Mitche ll Tsai’s office is submitting comments on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC).
Response 2-1:
No response required.
Comment 2-2:
This comment requests that the City of Victorville provide SWRCC with all notices related to the Project issued under CEQA.
Response 2-2:
Comment is noted and in accordance with State law, the City will provide notices to SWRCC.
Comment 2-3:
This comment suggests that the City require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit community’s economic development and environment. It is further suggested that the City require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program.
Response 2-3:
This comment does not identify any specific concern s with the adequacy of the IS/MND.
Therefore, no further response is required.
Comment 2-4:
Comment indicates that local hire and skilled/train ed workforce requirement are helpful in reducing environmental impacts and improving positi ve economic impacts of “the Project”.
Provides summary of consultant study results indica ting decreased worker trip length reduces GHG emissions.
Response 2-4:
Local hire provisions are not an issue required to be addressed in CEQA. However, with a current unemployment rate above the County average, the Cit y of Victorville anticipates that most construction workers will come from the local labor pool. In June 2022, San Bernardino County’s unemployment rate was 3.4% and the City’s was 5.1% according to the State Employment Development Department. The Project will be built over several years and by various builders in each phase. The City cannot place such requested r equirements on the builders, however there will be several million dollars in off-site improve ments and infrastructure for which the City will manage contracts and require the payment of prevailing wages.
2 Comment 2-5:
Comment presents policies and requirements of City of Hayward related to local hiring.
Response 2-5:
Comment noted. This comment does not identify any s pecific concerns with the adequacy of the IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.
Comment 2-6:
Presents note from 2008 California Planning Roundta ble related to located jobs closer to residential areas.
Response 2-6:
The City may agree with such a statement however wh ether or not such jobs/housing balance occurs is an outcome of each jurisdictions General Plan update process. Further, this comment does not identify any specific concerns with the ad equacy of the IS/MND and no additional response is required.
Comment 2-7:
Again, the “experts Robert Cervero and Michael Dunc an” studies are cited as related to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) reduction by hiring locally a nd thereby mitigating certain environmental impacts.
Response 2-7:
The City may agree with such a statement however th e City has no authority to require that contractors hire locally. Further, this comment doe s not identify any specific concerns with the adequacy of the IS/MND and no additional response is required.
Comment 2-8:
Commenter cites various statutes and case law relat ed to the definition of the “fair argument” standard under which and agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Response 2-8:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15002:
(a) Three Step Process. An agency will normally take up to three separate steps in deciding which document to prepare for a project subject to CEQA. (1) In the first step the Lead Agency examines the proj ect to determine whether the project is subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. The agency may prepare a No tice of Exemption. (See:
Sections 15061 and 15062.)
3 (2) If the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study (Section 15063) to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the Initial Study sho ws that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant ef fect, the Lead Agency prepares a Negative Declaration. (See: Sections 15070 et seq.)
(3) If the Initial Study shows that the project may hav e a significant effect, the Lead Agency takes the third step and prepares an EIR. (See: Sections 15080 et seq.)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15006 states that p ublic agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by, among other things:
(a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning. (15004(c)) (b) Ensuring the swift and fair resolution of Lead Agency disputes. (15053) (c) Identifying projects which fit within categorical e xemptions and are therefore exempt from CEQA processing. (15300.4)
(d) Using Initial Studies to identify significant envir onmental issues and to narrow the scope of EIRs. (15063)
(e) Using a Negative Declaration when a project not oth erwise exempt will not have a significant effect on the environment. (15070)
The Initial Study for the subject project demonstrates that no significant impacts would result from the project as proposed and as mitigated. The document was circulated with a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 30-day public review beginning April 28, 2022. A total of two comment letters were received; in addition to commenter’s letter, the other letter was from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Comment 2-9:
Commenter argues that the City should recirculate the Initial Study.
Response 2-9:
As noted in Response 2-8, only two comment letters were received, neither of which resulted in a need to make substantial revision to the Initial Study. Recirculation is not warranted.
Comment 2-10:
Commenter states that conflicts in the impact findings must be resolved.
Response 2-10:
No conflicts exist as a result of public comments received on the IS/MND.
Comment 2-11:
Provides summary of Comments 2-9 and 2-10.
Response 2-11:
See Responses 2-9 and 2-10.
4 Comment 2-12:
This comment states that CEQA Guidelines requires mandatory finding of significance for health risks related to construction work, including the risk of spreading COVID-19.
Response 2-12:
The referenced section of CEQA Guidelines states” (a) A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment an d thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence , in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
(4) The environmental effects of a project will cause s ubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Construction of the proposed project does not pose a significant adverse effect on humans and would not differ from the construction activities o f any other residential or commercial project.
Further, the Project will be built over several yea rs and by various builders in each phase all of whom are required by law other than CEQA to provide worker safety. The City cannot place such requirements on the builders, however there will be several million dollars in off-site improvements and infrastructure for which the City will manage contracts and require OSHA compliance.
Comment 2-13:
The comment questions the adequacy of the biological analysis due to seasonality, time of day and weather conditions and requests that the biological investigation be expanded to include a broader span of times and conditions.
Response 2-13:
There have been numerous studies conducted on the s ite over the past decade which provide a range of seasonal conditions and times of the day. Surveys were first on the project site ten years ago prior to an initial clearing of all native vege tation on the project site. No sensitive biologica l features such as listed species, sensitive habitats and jurisdictional waters were identified at that time and the project was approved for development. The project site was graded after approval to create construction pads lots and internal streets, as well as installing infrastructure such as water supply lines and drainage systems. A second set of biological surveys were conducted in 2019 that included focused surveys for desert tortoise a nd burrowing owl, as well as a suitability assessment for Mohave ground squirrel. No sensitiv e biological features such as listed species, sensitive habitats and jurisdictional waters were identified in 2019 despite the four separate surveys efforts. ELMT conduct a habitat assessment in 202 1 to verify that the existing site conditions remained the same as those identified in 2019. As noted in their Habitat Assessment, site conditions remain the same. There were no new observations made for biological resources. The site remains in a disturbed conditions and no longer supports native habitat. A few of the original native species have grown back but the resulting ha bitat is not sufficient to support a comprehensive wildlife community. There is no evid ence of desert tortoise, burrowing owl or Mohave ground squirrel on the project site. Furthe r, there are no jurisdictional waters on the project site. The extent of these previous surveys and the lack of any evidence of sensitive plant, 5 wildlife or plant communities during the 2021 survey confirm that the site remains heavily disturb, does not support sensitive biological features and that no additional surveys are needed.
Comment 2-14:
The comment points out the CEQA requires an analysis be provided the public of the presence of sensitive biological resources on a project site, t he potential for site development to impacts a sensitive biological resource, an analysis of alter native development to avoid impacts and the availability of mitigation measures to compensate a ny identified and unavoidable significant impacts.
Response 2-14:
From a biological perspective, there are no sensiti ve biological resources on the project site (see Response to Comment 2-13). However, biological mitigation measures have been developed and are included in the EIR to ensure no significant impacts to biological resources will occur.
Comment 2-15:
The comment suggest that nesting birds can occur on the project site and that the mitigation measure for nesting birds be expanded to include a pre-construction survey during the non-nesting season, as well as the nesting season. The comment references the CDFW’s letter and notes that CDFW has provide a more robust Nesting Bird Pre-Con structure Survey that would suffice to address this concern.
Response 2-15:
The suggested language for creating a more robust N esting Bird Pre-construction Survey will be included in the EIS. See Response to Comment 1-11.
Comment 2-16:
Commenter believes the project’s energy impacts are not fully addressed.
Response 2-16:
The use of energy for all project phases and compo nents was derived from the SCAQMD’s CalEEMod output which accounts for all project-rela ted energy use, including transportation and construction demands.
Comment 2-17:
Comment relates to the IS/MND’s lack of a General Plan consistency analysis.
Response 2-17:
Although a comprehensive table of applicable Genera l Plan Policies was not provided, most all sections of the IS/MND where appropriate reference the applicable General Plan section and whether the Project would comply or be consistent. With approval of a General Plan Amendment 6 and Change of Zone, the Proposed Project would be c onsistent with the General Pan and would not cause a significant environmental impact as all surrounding uses are designated for or developed with similar uses.
Comment 2-18:
Comment suggest transportation findings should be reassessed because the Vehicle Miles Traveled impacts should be mitigated.
Response 2-18:
The VMT analysis was conducted per the City guideli nes (adopted and approved on June 23 rd
2020). Please refer to City staff regarding City established thresholds
Comment 2-19:
Comment suggest transportation findings should be r eassessed because parking and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Response 2-19:
Commenter suggests the City should use electric veh icle parking and charging station requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The City of Victorville is not within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area AQMD, but the Mojave Desert AQMD.
Comment 2-20:
The IS/MND omits information and fails to support i ts findings on water quality impacts with substantial evidence. IS/MND provides no analysis o r information as to what chemicals its wastewater will likely contain.
Response 2-20:
In response to Item 6 on page 16 of 19 of the Mitch ell Tsai letter regarding project water quality we are providing the following information. The project has prepared a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) (243 pages) and a Prelimin ary Hydrology Study (78 pages) that addresses water quality for the post-construction p hase of the project. The report identifies the expected pollutants from the project on page 2-3. T his includes pathogens, nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen, sediments, metals, grease and oil, trash and debris, and pesticides or herbicides. This project will employ best management practices (BMPs) to address these pollutants in compliance with the storm water regulations of t he City of Victorville and the San Bernardino County Phase II Small MS4 General Permit for the Mojave River Watershed.
The BMPs for the 36-acre development of commercial and residential uses will include pre- treatment using a proprietary hydrodynamic separato r unit to remove sediments, floatable trash and grease and oil from the storm water runoff. The flows will then enter an underground chamber that will capture and infiltrate the required water quality treatment volume into the subsurface soils. Infiltration will eliminate the discharge of pollutants from the developed site. The site is suitable for capture and infiltration BMPs having a percolation rate of up to 26 inches per hour.
There are five proposed underground chambers using 96” diameter perforated pipes, or other 7 storage systems, with gravel backfill. The chambers will have additional storage volume and outlet control manholes to meet the City’s hydromodificati on requirements in which the post- development runoff rate is controlled so that the runoff from the 10-year 24-hour storm event and the 100-year 1-hour storm event does not exceed the pre-development runoff rates.
Comment 2-21:
Comments states that mitigation measures for air qu ality impacts are deferred mitigation because timing of use of water trucks is not stated.
Response 2-21:
Commenter incorrectly references Mitigation Measure AQ-3 for dust control. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 clearly states that the Project Proponent shal l ensure compliance with Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) Rules 402 & 403 including watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on-going basis after the initiation of any grading activity and grading activities are suspended when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. This clearly is not deferred but states specific requirements that shall be followed.
Comment 2-22:
This comment again suggests recirculation of the IS /MND is required because of an inadequate Project Description. Commenter cites CEQA Guideline s Section 15124 that requires a statement of objectives among other things.
Response 2-22:
Initial Studies are not required to include a state ment of objectives. The referenced CEQA guideline section in under the Chapter of Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports.
Commenter clearly cites an incorrect reference from CEQA Guidelines.
Comment 2-23:
Concluding comment that again requests the City prepare an EIR or recirculate the IS/MND.
Response 2-23:
See Responses 2-8 and 2-9.
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
May 27, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Alex Jauregui, Senior Planner
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Dr.
Victorville, CA 92392
Em: [email protected]
RE: Southwest Carpenters Comments on The City of Victorville, Victor Valley Connection Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Jauregui,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“ Southwest Carpenter” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments regarding the City of Victorville’s (“City”) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Victorville Valley Connection Project (“Project”).
The Project calls for the development of a mixed-use commercial and residential development on an approximately 34 acre site. It includes commercial, retail, office, self-storage and restaurants on the approximately 16 acre southern half of the site and 376 multi-family residential units on the remaining northern half of the site.
SWRCC is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including California, and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individu al members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
Letter 2
2-1
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the IS/MND submitted prior to approval of the IS/MND for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
SWRCC also requests that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction o f construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of th e project site.
2-1
Cont.
2-2
2-3
2-4
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.” 3
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 2-4
Cont.
2-5
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state -approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
2-5
Cont.
2-6
2-7
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.
I. THE CITY SHOULD PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTA L
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT
CEQA is a California statute designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 At its core, “[i]ts purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.
To achieve this purpose, CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80. The EIR requirement “is the heart of CEQA.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(a).
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.
This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the 8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217.
2-7
Cont.
2-8
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. 3d 988, 1002.
The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that "may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21151; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. App. 3d 68, 75; Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC §§ 21100(a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(b)(2), 15064(f)(3). "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a su bstantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." PRC § 21068; CEQA Guidelines § 15382. A project "may" have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable probability" that it will result in a significant impact . No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d at 83 fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.
App. 3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1580.
This standard sets a "low threshold" for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. v.
City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 754; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 310. If substantial evidence in t he record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 877, 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Soc'y, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.
App. 4th 144, 150; Brentwood Ass'n for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 2-8
Cont.
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
Cal. App. 3d 491; Friends of "B" St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).
As explained below, the IS/MND fails to make certain essential findings. Further, for a number of findings which the IS/MND does make, it fails to support the findings with sufficient analysis and substantial evidence or incorporate adequate mitigation measures. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, triggering the “low threshold” standard for preparation of an EIR.
II. THE CITY MUST, AT THE VERY LEAST, REVISE AND
RECIRCULATE THE IS/MND
A. The IS/MND Requires Substantial Revisions
Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a negative declaration must be recirculated whenever the document must be substantially revised. A substantial revision includes the identification of new, avoidable significant effects requiring mitigation measures or project revisions to be added to reduce the effect to less than significant levels or upon the agency determining that a proposed mitigation measure or project change would not reduce a potential impact to insignificance. Id.
Additionally, when new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in an IS/MND and found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the IS/MND’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the IS/MND must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109.
In light of the IS/MND’s failure to substantiate all of its findings, provide adequate mitigation measures, and fully assess all relevant factors, the Project requires significant revisions and resolution of conflicts in evidence. Therefore, at a minimum, the City must revise and recirculate the IS/MND if it does not prepare an EIR for the Project. 2-8
Cont.
2-9
2-10
2-11
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
1. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High - risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as source s of community spread of COVID-19.9
Accordingly, the Lead Agency must adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conductin g temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT
CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. 2-12
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
• A perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area.
• There will be clear signage posted at the Project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.
Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact devices. • Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center an d should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperatur e
screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at entrances from 5:30 am to 7: 30 am.
• After 7:30 a.m., only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gainin g entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading abo ve 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, the individual will be instructed that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. The individual will also be instructed to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative.
2-12
Cont.
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches), and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Contro l,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, or applicable local public health agencies.10
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. Likewise, the City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
2. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Assess Impacts on Biological Resources and Provides Insufficient Mitigation Measures
From the very onset of the IS/MND’s discussion of the Project’s impacts on wildlife species, it is apparent that its analysis is insufficient as it is “limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted.” IS/MND at 25. Given that the Project construction and operation will span all seasons, times of day, and weather conditions, the discussion and analysis must be expanded to assess broader spans of time and conditions before the IS/MND can conclude that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant.
CEQA requires that an environmental document identify and discuss the significant effects of a Project, alternatives and how those significant effects can be mitigated or 10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/ NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 2-12
Cont.
2-13
2-14
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
avoided. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2; PRC §§ 21100(b)(1), 21002.1(a). An environmental document’s discussion of potentially significant effects must “provide an adequate analysis to inform the public how its bare numbers translate to create potential adverse impacts or it must adequately explain what the agency does know and why, given existing scientific constraints, it cannot translate potential [environmental] impacts further.” Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 521; see also citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405; see also PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 21003(b).
Notwithstanding the IS/MND’s failure to adequately assess all of the wildlife species potentially impacted by the Project, the IS/MND fails to adequately mitigate impacts to the nesting birds it identifies. Specifically, the IS/MND states that “seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds” could occur in the area and that the Project site “has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportun ities for birds that nest on the open ground and those acclimated to routine disturbances (e.g. killdeer (Charadius vociferus)).” IS/MND at 25. Accordingly, the IS/MND requires that a pre- construction nesting bird survey be conducted “[i]f construction occ urs between February 1 and August 31” (Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Id. at 26. However, as noted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in a November 18, 2021 letter to the nearby city of Adelanto concerning a similar pre-construction nesting bird survey mitigation measure:
CDFW is concern[ed] that [the mitigation measure] is conditioned to only require surveys during the peak bird nesting season considering that birds, such as hummingbirds may nest year-round. Furthermore, [the mitigation measure] defines bird nesting season as February 1 to August 31. Please note that nesting may commence before and/or after this timeframe. For example, some species of raptors (e g. owls, hawks, etc.) may commence nesting activities in January, and passerines may nest later than August 31.
Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
11 11 November 18, 2021 letter from California Department of fish and Wildlife to the City of Adelanto at 3, available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/273819- 2-14
Cont.
2-15
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
Accordingly, the mitigation measure should be revised to require that prior to construction occurring during the non-nesting season, a sweep be conducted verifying the absence of nesting birds
3. The IS/MND Fails to Support its Findings on Energy Impacts with Substantial Evidence
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b), analysis into a project’s energy impacts “should include the project's energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation.” Further, “[i]n addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project's size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. . . This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project.”
As the IS/MND readily admits, development of the Proposed Project would cause a permanent increase in demand for electricity and natural gas when compared to existing conditions. IS/MND at 30-31. Nevertheless, without assessing the Project’s energy impacts in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND concludes that the Project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy impacts.
First, the IS/MND only assess the Project’s energy use during its operation phase and fails to account for energy use during the construction phase. IS/MND at 30 -31.
Further, the IS/MND fails to assess whether any renewable en ergy features could be incorporated into the Project. Finally, the IS/MND focuses on all of Southern California’s energy consumption, which it relies upon to justify the Project’s relative use. Id. at 31 [“the natural gas demand from the Proposed Project w ould represent an insignificant percentage of the overall demand in Southwest Gas Company’ service area.] This line of analysis is neither reasonable nor focused on energy use caused by the Project.
The IS/MND must broaden its analysis to take all of the P roject phases and CEQA Guideline factors into account and thereafter must shift its focus to assess the Project’s energy use without conflating it to all of Southern California’s energy use. 1/attachment/zo76RgD7dUdj5BLJTEhEMdf74g6f100RrKiWBQSquhFFe5l0X53rLsbLSG MPRXgXM4AaYnJSTfZB6JpY0.
2-15
Cont.
2-16
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
4. The IS/MND Fails to Support its Findings on Land Use with Substa ntial Evidence.
Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. It is well established that development projects may not be approved if they interfere with, or frustrate, the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544.
Here, the IS/MND is barren of information and analysis on land use consistency as it does not provide any substantive analysis of consistency with the goals and policies identified in the City’s General Plan. Rather, the IS/MND merely makes a conclusory statement that with approval of the Project’s requested General Plan Amendment, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan since the proposed mixed -use development is consistent with existing uses in the area. IS/MND at 44. This is not sufficient analysis as it does not actually address any goals or policies identified in the General Plan. Nor does the IS/MND analyze consistency with any regional plan goals and policies such as the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Without conducting this analysis, the IS/MND’s less than significant finding is simply unsupported.
5. The IS/MND Should Reassess its Transportation Findings.
The IS/MND concludes that the Project will not have significant vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) transportation impacts because the Project’s “VMT per service population is 10.2 percent lower than the City’s General Plan Buildout scenario VMT per service population.” IS/MND at 54. “[A] lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(c). 2-17
2-18
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
Here, the City’s significance threshold is unsupported by substantial evidence.
According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation impacts, “[a] proposed [residential] project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a s ignificant transportation impact.”12 Accordingly, there is a fair argument that the Project’s 10% VMT reduction renders its transportation impacts significant, requiring mitigation.
Further, the IS/MND fails to assess whether the Project provides sufficient parking and charging station for electric vehicles. This assessment is so important because as recently noted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“ BAAQMD”), sufficient electric vehicle parking and charging stations is crucial for la nd use projects if California wants to achieve’ its long-standing goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. In pertinent part, the BAAQMD stated:
Decarbonization of the transportation infrastructure serving land use development will come from shifting the motor vehicle fleet to EVs, coupled with a shift to carbon -free electricity to power those vehicles.
Land use projects cannot directly control whe ther and how fast these shifts are implemented, but they can and do have an important indirect influence on California’s transition to a zero -carbon transportation system. New land use development can influence transportation -related emissions in two areas related to how it is designed and built. First, new land use projects need to provide sufficient EV charging infrastructure to serve the needs of project users who will be driving EVs. If project users cannot find the charging infrastructure they need to charge their vehicles at the residential, commercial, and other buildings they frequent, they will be discouraged from switching to an EV. But if those buildings provide sufficient charging infrastructure to make driving an EV easy and efficient, then users will find it easy to choose to drive an EV, and the rate of EV penetration will be accelerated. It is therefore very important for land use 12 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018 (December), Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, p. 12, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. 2-18
Cont.
2-19
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
projects to provide the EV charging infrastructure needed to support growing EV usage.13
In light of this, the City should further consider requiring the Project to adhere to the electric vehicle parking and charging station requirements identified in the 2022 CALGreen Tier 2 standards, as recommended by BAAQMD. 14
6. The IS/MND Omits Information and Fails to Support its Findings on Water Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND recognizes that “[p]ost-construction activities of the proposed project development would include standard maintenance . . . involving the use of commercially available products (e.g. pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc.)”.
IS/MND at 38. Nevertheless, when assessing the Project’s water quality impacts, the IS/MND provides no analysis or information as to what chemicals its wastewater will likely contain.
15 The IS/MND relies solely upon required regulatory measures in concluding that the Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
IS/MND at 41. However, determinations that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956. Therefore, the IS/MND cannot rely upon regulatory compliance in making its less than significant impact determination without assessing and providing this Project specific information as to its anticipated wastewater.
13 BAAQMD 2022 (April) CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts, pp. 13-14, available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en. 14 Id. at 15-16.
15Although the IS/MND relies upon a Hydrology Report prepared for the Project, the report likewise does not assess the anticipated chemicals which the Project’s wastewater will contain despite acknowledging that the Project will pick up runoff from the Project’s gas station, garden, restaurants, and buildings. May 17, 2021 Hydrology Report, DRC Engineering, Inc., available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/278295-1/attachment/g- RvgxTtbfb3W47yp1u24YDd4knZPTFYMkJwB57VvOY9JgwSqb0TcjfMXBEXstEbf2wPr MXJmEWyF1HR0.
2-19
cont.
2-20
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
7. The IS/MND Defers its Air Quality Mitigation Measures When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the measure and the significant impacts of the project.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4)(A), citing Nollan v. Ca. Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. All mitigation must be feasible and fully enforceable, and all feasible mitigation must be imposed by lead agencies.
CEQA Guidelines, § 15041. Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time. Id., § 15126.4(a)(B).
Here, the mitigation measures imposed to mitigate the Project’s air q uality impacts constitute deferred mitigation. For instance, Mitigation Measure AQ -3 provides that, “[t]he Project Proponent shall ensure that a water truck is used to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and that water is actively spread during visible dusti ng episodes to minimize fugitive dust emissions.” IS/MND at 21. However, no specificity is provided with regard to how often the water truck must be used, how much water it should distribute, what constitutes a “moist disturbed surface”, and what actively spreading the water entails. The IS/MND must be revised to include these important mitigation measure specifications to ensure that the Project’s air quality impacts are less than significant.
Similarly, for Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-5, reference is made to chemical and gravel stabilization “sufficient to eliminate fugitive dust”. Id. However, the measures fail to specify which types of chemicals and gravel are permissible or what exactly is required so that the stabilization is “sufficient”. The IS/MND’s lack of crucial information in its air quality mitigation measures renders them deferred mitigation which must be rectified.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Include an Adequate Project Description The IS/MND also must be recirculated because it lacks an adequate Project description. “[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 200. “A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., 2-21
2-22
City of Victorville – Victorville Valley Connection Project May 19, 2022
the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the bal ance. Id. at 192 –
93. CEQA Guidelines § 15124 requires a project describe in enough detail to allow for evaluation of its potential environmental impacts: (a) the project’s precise location and boundaries; (b) a clearly written statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (d) a statement describing a list of agencies, permits, and approval which the project expects to use.
The IS/MND’s Project description does not satisfy this project description requirement. First, it provides no statement of objectives. IS/MND at 1. Rather, the Project description merely provides that the “[a]pplicant, is proposing a mixed -use development. . . consisting of commercial, retail, office, selfstorage, and multi-family residential development” but fails to specify what types of retail, office and commercial use the Project will entail. Further, the IS/MND provides no description of the Project’s economic characteristics. Id. For this reason too, the IS/MND must be revised and recirculated.
III. CONCLUSION
SWRCC requests that the City prepare an EIR for the Project. At a minimum, the City must revise and recirculate the IS/MND to address the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
______________________
Talia Nimmer
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 2-22
Cont.
2-23
ATTACHMENT O
Agency Comments
ATTACHMENT P
Aerial Image
Case Type: General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Tentative Parcel MapExisting Zoning: C-2T (General Commercial - Transitional)Project Area: Approximately 34 AcresLocation: North of and abutting Bear Valley Road between Second Avenue and Third AvenueAssessor Parcel Number: 3091-221-03 through 21CASE: PLAN21-00023
NPROJECT SITE
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT J
Initial Study &
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title: General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, S ite Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map Case No. PLAN21-00023 (Victor Valley Connection)
2. Lead agency name and address : City of Victorville Planning Division, PO Box 5001, Victorville, California 92393-5001.
3. Contact person and phone number: Alex Jauregui, Senior Planner, (760) 955-5135
4. Project location: North of and abutting Bear Valley Road between 2 nd and 3 rd Avenues, Victorville,
CA 92395
5. Project sponsor's name and address: Bear Valley Road & 2 nd Avenue, LLC
c/o Michael Asheghian
MJM Investment Co., LLC
12300 Wilshire Blvd #410
Los Angeles, CA 90025
6. General Plan designation: Commercial
7. Zoning: General Commercial Transitional (C-2T)
8. Description of project:
MJM Investment Company, LLC., Applicant, is proposi ng a mixed-use development, Victorville Connection Project (Project), consisting of commercial, retail, office, self- storage, and multi-family residential development o n approximately 34.74 acres in the City of Victorville, CA (City), County of San Bernardino. T he Project includes approximately 230,632 square feet of commercial, retail, office and self-storage uses on 16.07 acres and 376 multi-family residential dwelling units on 18.67 acres with a density of 20.14 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). (See Figure 1, Site Plan and Table 1, Land Use Summary for a breakdown of the Project).
The Project Site is located in the southeast portion of the City of Victorville (see Figure 2, Regional Location), on the north side of Bear Valley Road be tween 2 nd Avenue and 3 rd Avenue (see Figure 3, Project Vicinity). The Project Site Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 3091-221-03 through -21. The site was previously approved for an office/business park use. The site was graded by a past owner with curb cuts and driveway entrances, a nd utilities were installed for a previously anticipated development whose entitlements have exp ired. The site is currently vacant and traversed with dirt roads.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 2
Table 1
Land Use Summary
PARCEL
(TPM
20402)
District LAND USE ACRES
APPROXIMATE
BUILDING SQ.
FT.
DWELLING
UNITS
DENSITY
(DU/AC)
Parcel 1 3 Parking 0.69 - - -
Parcel 2 3 Drive-Thru/Retail 0.83 6,200 - -
Parcel 3* 5 Convenience Store with
Fueling Station and Car
Wash
2.32 4,592 - -
Parcel 4 3 Retail 0.89 5,300 - -
Parcel 5 3 Retail 3.47 42,000 - -
Parcel 6 3 Drive-Thru/Retail 0.61 3,500 - -
Parcel 7 3 Drive-Thru 0.69 3,000 - -
Parcel 8 3 Retail/Restaurant 0.59 4,242 - -
Parcel 9 3 Retail/Restaurant 1.00 4,535 - -
Parcel 10 2 Office/Medical 0.55 3,280 - -
Parcel 11 2 Office/Medical 1.10 6,800 - -
Parcel 12 4 Storage/Office
Office within Storage
Building
3.33 137,183
10,000
- -
Non-Residential Total 16.07 230,632 -
Parcel 13 1 Multi-Family Residential 1.67 - 48 -
Parcel 14 1 Multi-Family Residential 5.92 - 68 -
Parcel 15 1 Multi-Family Residential 2.21 - 56 -
Parcel 16 1 Multi-Family Residential 3.19 - 88 -
Parcel 17 1 Multi-Family Residential 4.18 - 86 -
Parcel 18 1 Multi-Family Residential 1.50 - 30 -
Residential Total 18.67 483,736 376 20.14
Overall Total 34.74 714,368 376 -
*Approved under separate entitlement application.
The Project consists of the following applications:
- General Plan Amendment (GPA) application from the current General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C) to Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation.
- Change of Zone (CZ) application from General Comm ercial – Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone.
- Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 20402 application to subdivide 34.74 acres into 18 parcels.
The parcels range in size from 0.55 acres (Parcel 10) up to 5.92 acres (Parcel 14).
- Site Plan application for approximately 230,632 s quare feet of commercial use, consisting of retail, storage, restaurant, and office uses, and up to 376 multi-family residential dwelling units on 34.74 acres.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 3
- Planned Unit Development Application The PUD cons ists of Parcels 1 – 18 of TPM No. 20402. The PUD will be developed to be consistent with the City of Victorville Municipal Code Article 16: Planned Unit Developments and incl ude the specific development standards and land use allowances for the proposed Victor Valley Connection PUD.
The PUD is divided into two (2) Districts that contain the proposed commercial, retail, office, self- storage, multi-family residential development, parking, plazas, and landscaping improvements.
The two (2) Districts are as follows and as shown on Figure 4:
- District 1 – Multi-Family Residential District – (Parcels 13 - 18 of TPM 20402)
- District 2 – Commercial District – Commercial Dis trict – (Parcels 1 - 12 of TPM 20402)*
*Parcel 3 of TPM 20402 consists of a Car Wash and C onvenience Store that will be approved under a separate entitlement application.
A drive-thru restaurant on an existing 1.25-acre parcel is proposed at the northwest corner of Bear Valley Road and 2nd Avenue under a separate entitlement process. This land use is not included as a Parcel in Table 1, Land Use Summary.
The Project is anticipated to include 1,192 standard parking stalls, 65 accessible parking stalls, and 1 loading parking stall for an overall total of 1,258 stalls. Access to the Project will be provided as follows:
- Three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road.
- Two full access driveways and one emergency acces s on 3rd Avenue.
- Two full access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue.
The Proposed Project is anticipated to be built in several phases as shown on Figure 5. As previously stated, the drive-thru restaurant proposed at the northwest corner of Bear Valley Road and 2nd Avenue is under a separate entitlement process and is not a part of the PUD. However, the drive-thru is included in the overall phasing plan for the area between Bear Valley Road, 2nd Avenue, and 3rd Avenue. The drive-thru restaurant w ill be developed as Phase 1 of the overall phasing plan along with the convenience store with fueling station.
The development of the PUD will commence with Phase 1 of the overall phasing plan including the construction of the convenience store with fueling station. The second phase of the Project will consist of developing Parcels 13, 14, and 15 with multi-family residential, as well as Parcels 1, 2, 6, and 7 with restaurant and retail uses. The third phase will develop Parcel 12 with a storage/office campus. The fourth phase will develop additional multi-family units within Parcel 16. The fifth phase will develop Parcels 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 with the retail, restaurant, office, and commercial uses.
The sixth phase will develop the remaining multi-family residential within Parcels 17 and 18. Phasing is anticipated to be as stipulated, but the timing of building phasing may vary in the final development as allowed by the proposed PUD standards.
The entire site is proposed to be mass graded in an approximate three-month time frame. Actual construction and phasing will be dependent upon market conditions once the Project receives City approval.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 4
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The Project Site is within the City of Victorville. Figure LU-1 Land Use Map of the City of Victorville General Pla n shows that the Project Site is within the Commercial land use designation. The adjacent parcels to the north of the Project Site consists of single-family residential uses. Bear Valley Road occurs to the south the Project Site. The adjacent parcel to the west of 3 rd Avenue supports single-family residential uses and vacant land zoned commercial. Adjacent to the east of 2nd Avenue is d eveloped with the Victor Elementary School District Office and Desert Valley Hospital. The following table lists the existing land uses and zoning district designations.
Existing Land Use and Land Use Zoning Districts
Location Existing Land Use Land Use Zoning District
Project Site Vacant Land General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) North Residential Development Single Family Residential (R-1) South Commercial Uses/Residential
Development
City of Hesperia – General Commercial (C2)
City of Hesperia – Residential (R3)
East
School/ Hospital Administrative Professional (C-A )
General Commercial Transitional (C-2T)
West
Residential Development/ Vacant
Land
Single Family Residential (R-1)
General Commercial Transitional (C-2T)
10. Other public agency whose approval is required: Recordation of a final map, issuance of building permits and completion of structure design to current building codes is required by the City prior to development on-site. In addition, approval is required by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board for compliance with the General Construction Permit, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management D istrict for issuance of construction and operation permits for gas station, Victorville Wate r District for water service; and Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority for sewer connection.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 5
Figure 1
-~f;"====.:::::is:::::::::;::::::::-::::;-=r============r::==========-:.:-:.:.;·-::·::.··-::;·::··-=-::···==r===;:;;::=ir=.=:,T----.\ ,,.-, GENERAL NOTES ~;) l :=i'=~..»mo,,,cctn.
ZONE C2 SUIAIAR'f
.,,----·
VICTORVILLE CONNECTION
BEAR IJALLEV DEVELOPMENT COM PAM¥. LlC
BEAR VALLEY ROAD, BETWEEN 2ND AVENUE & 3RD AVENUE. VICTORVILLE, CA JANUARY 11, 2022 75·21705-00 j
3. ··~-.. -IIO!t~.___.._"'°', ..... '~
KEYNOTES:
El,_,, ••
ffi-N.O,.lllm" •Wl•-ur~t
El "~•----ro••• El ..... ,_
El =~-•U•
frl-o--EJ-•~-~•
El ""'"•- •• fil11i-•w.o
PAAC&2NIT
~MJ
~ ~c7=~==-,-Ml ~k::"::a::,:,::::::;:::::,N:::~::;::c::;.••:_:•"l::~ l!J :::::c:::nn_r,P 1--~- •--,.-~~,_,=.,~""1
G] JTufYl.o._,,on
~ =::::~t~:::, ~::~:::::::t:'.:":'.'."::;;' •:;";:· ·;:•:i:;:l El .,.;:u.1~""'"°"'r,,. .a. sac.. ... ""''
~ =:~=~:smvovt1 l'.:!l _ , ... ca. ....... , I-----+----, ~ -DH\ol. ... U.'I..._.,, OH',C(.UC I • . ,
-a-l'a ,11ntN
15l~IIU'IOO
TOTAL ZOHE C2 SUMMARY
LEGEND:
,___,...._ .. __
·+-·-4 =.;.-""' .... ___ ._, ...
-=-"-~~-== =~C ..
,-f'-- o ~, ~ ,., ;::i;; "';;'" ________ •
PROPOSED SITE PLAN [ A1.1
,-.J5w ·11• ..... 11
1i,,, r1•0•.
t:r::i:1.:; lil DLR Group - ....... -t•to-•1,.,,.,,., ... .,...
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 6
Figure 2
I
f
Kais
igh Des
ltd
Hes na ig Sc ool
0 • 0.75
Mll•
S00r<e: lilbum Corp.., December , 2021 .
LILBURN
C OR P OR AT IO N
' J
-
espe a Zo
-
REGIONAL LOCAIION
Victorville Connection
City of Victorville, (olifornio
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 7
Figure 3
""•' 5"'urce-: Lilburn C,aq,..,. De-cember ,. 2021 .
LILBURN
O Rl'ORATIOt'I
PROJECT VICINITY
Victorville Connection
City of Vi1c1orvill e, Califomi•a
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 8
Figure 4
a.r ::, /
O r
l5 ~
~ I
'3/\V ONi ,,.____ 0 •
a
:ti t
~,~ ,-~J."-..
.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 9
Figure 5
a.
e lJ
~
0 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connect ion
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmenta l factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the check list on the following pages.
X
Land Use/Planning
Population /Housing
Geology/So ils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Air Quality
Transportation
Tribal Cultura l
Resour ces
X Biologica l Resources
Minera l Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Noise
Public Services
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
X
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA TIVE DECLARAT ION will be prepared.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the incorporated mitigation measures and revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T REPOR T is required .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlie r analys is as descr ibed on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR T is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed .
I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because no new potentially significant effects have been identified beyond those previously analyzed adequately in an earlie r EIR, pursuant to applicable standards, and no additional mitigation measu res beyond those imposed as part of that previous EIR are necessary to be imposed upon the proposed project to reduce mitigable impacts to a insignificant level. Therefore, no additional environmental documentation is necessary .
Signature: Date:
4/28/2022
___ A_le_x_J_a_u_r~eg~u_i~, S_en_i_o_r _P_la_n_n_e_r _ _ For: City of Victorv ille 10 March 18, 2022
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is provided for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources the lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on project-sp ecific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is noted if th ere is substantial evidence that an effect is signi ficant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant Wi th Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The lead agency describes the mitigation measures, and briefly explains how they reduce the effect to a less than significant l evel (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earli er Analyses", may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be referenced where, pursu ant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier docu ment pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) The lead agency incorporates into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vi sta? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade th e existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are expe rienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the pro ject is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glar e which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
AESTHETICS
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Victorville General Plan (“General Plan”) identifies the importance of conservation of local scenic resources such as natural and cultural resources and how they are necessary assets for the community. 1 The Project Site is located on Bear Valley Road between 2 nd Avenue and 3 rd Avenue. The proposed development includes a three- story storage building with maximum height of 41 feet along the e astern portion of the Project Site and would be comparable in height to the nearby commercial an d office uses to the south of Bear Valley Road and the Desert Valley Hospital to the east (se e Figure 6, Commercial Building Elevations example). The proposed development includes a two-s tory apartment complex with a maximum height of 35 feet along the northern portion of the Project Site, which would be comparable in height to the nearby two-story residences located t o the north and northwest (see Figure 7, Residential Building Elevation example). With approval of the GPA, the Proposed Project would be an acceptable use within the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation. Additionally, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within or near the Project Site. Development of the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. As stated, the General Plan identifies the importa nce of conservation of local scenic resources such as natural and cultural resources and how they are nec essary assets for the community. The Project Site does not contain any significant features such as rock outcroppings, trees and/or historic buildings that could potentia lly be damaged by development of the Project Site. The site was previously approved for an offic e/business park and pad grading occurred on the entire site prior to abandonment of the project . According to the Victorville’s 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) , there are no existing or proposed state scenic highways in the Planning Area. 2 Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipate d, and no mitigation measures are required.
1 Victorville General Plan 2030. Page R-1
2 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Pag e 5.1.1 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 13
Figure 6
~ f'i;,-
% ~--
0 ;,;; ,ERIOR ELEVATION-WEST
0 ;,~;~ERIOR ELEVATION- EAST
*°<>; -
~ ',-
0 ;,;;,ERIOR ELEVATION- WEST
0 ;,~;~ERIOR ELEVATION-EAST
f---+ ----- --,j,--- - "1 ___;!;~
® ;,;; ,ERIOR ELEVATION- NORTH
0 ;,~;~ERIOR ELEVATION- SOUTH
G EXTERIOR ELEVATION- NORTH
0 ;,~;. ERIOR ELEVATION-SOUTH
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 14
Figure 7
Righi Rear
Left Front
Righi Rear
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 15
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site has been disturbed and was previously cleared of most vegetation during the initial stages of a previous development which was not completed.
The prior site preparation removed all vegetation, and no Joshua tree woodland exists on the Project Site. The proposed mixed use of commercial and residential use would be compatible with surrounding development and therefore would no t degrade the visual quality of the area because the proposed two-story apartments and three -story office/storage structure would be comparable in height to the nearby two-story residences located to the north, commercial uses to the south, and the hospital to the east. With approval of the GPA, the Proposed Project would be an acceptable use within the Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation and would be compatible with surrounding uses because the Proposed Project would not degrade the visual character or quality, or public views from publicly accessible vantage points of the site or its surroundings. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the mixed-use project would gen erate light and glare when compared to existing conditions whic h is vacant disturbed land. However, the surrounding area includes existing lighting from ur ban development including streetlighting, commercial, institutional, and residential lighting. The design and placement of light fixtures within the future new development would be reviewed for co nsistency with City standards and subject to City approval. Standards require shielding, diff using, and indirect lighting to avoid glare.
Lighting would be selected and located to confine t he area of illumination to on-site streets.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are ident ified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural reso urces are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site As sessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessme nt Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and fores t carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocol s
adopted by the California Air Resources Board
Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural u se, or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezo ning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 16
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environmen t which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion or forest land to non-forest use?
X
Explanations:
a) No Impact. The Project Site has been previously disturbed and graded for development and is currently vacant. There are no agricultural operations occurring on-site or within the vicinity of the Project Site. The Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder shows that the Project Site occurs within Grazing Land.
3 However, the General Plan does not identify the
Project Site or vicinity for agricultural uses. The Proposed Project would not covert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use and no impact would occur as result of construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the 148-acre Kemper-Campbell Ranch site is the only property within the Planning Area under a Will iamson Act contract. 4 The Kemper-Campbell Ranch encompasses three parcels and is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. The Project Site is not within or adjacent to a Williamson Act contract property. As discussed above, no land on or adjacent to the Project Site is currently under agricultural production, nor are any parcels zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The Project Site is located in the High Desert and has previously been disturbed. The General Plan does not identify any parcels zoned fo r forest land or timber within the vicinity.
Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberla nd resources. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
d, e) No Impact. The Project Site does not support forest land nor does the Project Site support farmland. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use or farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
3 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed May 2, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
4 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Pag e 5.25 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 17
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increa se of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollut ant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . The Project Site is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB).
The MDAB encompasses the desert portion of San Bern ardino County. The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has jurisdicti on over air quality issues and regulations within the City of Victorville. To assist local agencies in determining if a project’s emissions could pose a significant threat to air quality, the MDAQM D has prepared the CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016. The air and dus t emissions from the construction and operational use of the Proposed Project were evaluated and compared to the MDAQMD air quality thresholds to determine significance.
Air quality is determined primarily by the types an d amounts of contaminants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the local air basin and the pollutant-dispersing properties of local weather patterns. When airborne pollutants are produced in such a volume that they are not dispersed by local meteorological conditions, a ir quality problems result. Dispersion of pollutants in the MDAB is influenced by periodic temperature inversions, persistent meteorological conditions and the local topography. As pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions occur, producing ozone and other oxidants.
Air emissions from the Proposed Project are subject to federal, State and local rules and regulations implemented through provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, California Clean Air Act, and the rules and regulations of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and MDAQMD. Air quality management districts with air basins not in attainment of the air quality standards are required to prepare an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). An AQMP establishes an area- specific program to control existing and proposed sources of air emissions so that the air quality standards may be attained by an applicable target date.
The federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act were established in an effort to assure that acceptable levels of air quality are maintained. Th ese levels are based upon health-related exposure limits and are referred to as National Amb ient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). T he ambient air quality standards establish maximum allowable concentrations of specific pollutants in the atmosphere and characterize the amount of exposure deemed safe for the public. Area s that meet the standards are designated attainment and areas found to be in violation of pr imary standards are designated as nonattainment.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 18
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the CARB have designated portions of the MDAQMD as nonattainment for a varie ty of pollutants, and some of those designations have an associated classification. Tab le 2 lists these designations and classifications. The MDAQMD has adopted attainment plans for a variety of nonattainment pollutants.
Table 2
State and Federal Air Quality
Designations and Classifications
Ambient Air Quality Standard Status
Eight-hour Ozone
(Federal 70 ppb (2015))
Expected Non-attainment; to be determined.
Ozone (State) Non-attainment; classified Moderate
PM 10 (24-hour Federal)
Non-attainment; classified Moderate (portion of
MDAQMD in Riverside County is
unclassifiable/attainment)
PM 2.5 (Annual Federal) Unclassified/attainment
PM 2.5 (24-hour Federal) Unclassified/attainment
PM 2.5 (State)
Non-attainment (portion of MDAQMD outside of
Western Mojave Desert Ozone Non-Attainment
Area is unclassified/attainment)
PM 10 (State) Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide (State and Federal) Unclassifiable/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (State and Federal) Unclassifiable /Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (State and Federal) Attainment/uncla ssified Lead (State and Federal) Unclassifiable/Attainment
Particulate Sulfate (State) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (State) Unclassified (Searles Valley Planning Area is non-attainment)
Visibility Reducing Particles (State) Unclassified
Source: MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016
The Proposed Project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current
General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C) to Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation for a mixed-use development, and a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone.
An evaluation of potential air quality impacts rela ted to the buildout under the current General Plan (i.e., Commercial) and the Proposed Project (i .e., Mixed-Use) was prepared. Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate operational emissions associated with the current General Plan Land Use designations and with the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, operational impacts resulting from either development under the existing General Plan Land Use designations or the Proposed Project would not exceed MDAQMD thresholds . Consequently, the Proposed Project would not result in a conflict or obstruction to the implementation of the AQMP .
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 19
Table 3
Operational Emissions
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Commercial 53.2 32.7 221.0 0.4 42.0 11.5
Proposed Project 43.7 39.2 266.1 0.5 57.1 15.9
MAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer Emissions
Table 4
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO
2 CH 4 N 20
Commercial 8,217.9 14.9 0.5
MTCO2e 8,719.1
Proposed Project 10,622.6 12.0 0.5
MTCO2e 11,082.5
MAQMD Threshold 100,000
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emission s.
The operational impacts resulting from either the existing General Plan Land Use designations or the Proposed Project would not exceed MDAQMD thresh olds; Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were screened using Californi a Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod was used to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions.
The emissions incorporate Rule 402 and 403 by defau lt as required during construction. The criteria pollutants screened for include reactive o rganic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and par ticulates (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). Two of the analyzed pollutants, ROG and NOx, are ozone precurs ors. Both summer and winter season emission levels were estimated and results of the m odeling are summarized below and are available at the City offices for review.
Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are considered short-term, temporary emissions and were modeled with the following construction parameters: site grading (mass and fine grading), building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Any proposed con struction phasing was not accounted for in the modeling; phases were assumed to be concurrent, thereby representing the highest concentration .
The resulting emissions generated by construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 5 and Table 6, which represent summer and winter construction emissions respectively.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 20
Table 5
Summer Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Demolition 2.7 25.8 21.1 1.4 1.2
Site Preparation 3.2 33.1 20.3 10.6 6.1
Grading 3.7 38.9 29.7 5.9 3.2
Building Construction 3.6 22.1 33.0 5.6 2.1
Paving 1.1 8.6 15.0 0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating 133.0 1.3 4.1 0.8 0.3
Highest Value (lbs/day) 133.0 38.9 33.0 10.6 6.1
MDAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 82 65
Significant No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer Emissions.
Table 6
Winter Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Demolition 2.7 25.8 21.0 1.4 1.2
Site Preparation 3.2 33.1 20.2 10.6 6.1
Grading 3.7 38.9 29.6 5.9 3.2
Building Construction 3.2 20.0 29.4 5.4 2.0
Paving 1.1 8.6 14.9 0.5 0.4
Architectural Coating 133.0 1.3 3.8 0.8 0.3
Highest Value (lbs/day) 133.0 38.9 29.6 10.6 6.1
MDAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 82 65
Significant No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Winter Emissions.
As shown Table 3 and Table 4, the anticipated const ruction emissions are less than the MDAQMD thresholds and would be considered less than signif icant. Table 5 and Table 6 provide results including to a minimum130-day architectural coating period which is also recommended as Mitigation Measure AQ-7 (see below), to reduce impacts related to construction emissions . Furthermore, the Proposed Project shall comply with all applicable d ust mitigation requirements recommended by MDAQMD, as listed below.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1:
The Project Proponent shall prepare and submit to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that des cribes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project. T he most current Dust Control Plan Requirements and Dust Control Plan Submission For a re available at http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/permitting/compliance-forms .
Mitigation Measure AQ-2:
The Project Proponent shall ensure that signage com pliant with MDAQMD Rule 403 Attachment B is erected at the project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 21
Mitigation Measure AQ-3:
The Project Proponent shall ensure that a water tru ck is used to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and that water is actively spread during visible dusting episodes to minimize fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through ea rthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4:
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 suspended by local ordinance, ru le or project specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5:
All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient t o eliminate fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related trackout onto paved surfaces, and clean any project-related track out within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be s tabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means sufficient to prohibit visible fugitive dust from wind erosion.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6:
Obtain MDAQMD permits for any miscellaneous process equipment that may not be exempt under District Rule 219 including, but not l imited to internal combustion engines with a manufacture’s maximum continuous rat ing greater than 50 brake horsepower.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end use), area (operational use of the project), and mobile ( vehicle trips). Operational emissions were estimate d using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 defaults for Ge neral Office Building, Medical Office Building, Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail, Fast Food Restaur ant with Drive Thru, Apartment Low Rise, Free- Standing Discount store, Gasoline/Service Station subcategories and are listed in Table 7 and Table 8, which represent summer and winter operational emissions, respectively.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 22
Table 7
Summer Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Area 18.7 0.4 31.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
Energy 0.3 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2
Mobile 28.8 35.6 260.2 0.6 57.0 15.5
Totals (lbs/day) 47.7 37.0 292.4 0.7 57.4 15.9
MDAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer Emissions.
Table 8
Winter Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Area 18.7 0.4 31.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
Energy 0.2 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.2
Mobile 24.8 36.7 234 0.5 57.0 15.5
Totals (lbs/day) 43.7 39.2 266.1 0.5 57.4 15.9
MDAQMD Threshold 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Winter Emissions.
As shown, both summer and winter season operational emissions are below MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in an existing or projected air quality violation.
However, to ensure potential impacts related to construction emissions are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure AQ-7:
The Project Proponent shall ensure a minimum durati on of 130 days for architectural coating.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines (August 2016) describes sensitive receptors as being residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and medical facilities. The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated using MDAQMD significance thresholds:
• Any industrial project within 1000 feet;
• A distribution center (40 or more tucks per day) w ithin 1000 feet; • A major transportation project (50,000) or more ve hicles per day) within 1000 feet; • A dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 f eet; • A gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.
As such, the Proposed Project does not meet the cri teria for a project type which is subject to sensitive receptor significance threshold evaluatio n. The Proposed Project includes residential and commercial development but none of the uses ide ntified above. Furthermore, the modeling results shown previously indicate that development of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 23
exceed MDAQMD emissions thresholds. Therefore, no s ignificant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact . The Proposed Project consists of commercial, reta il, office, self-storage, and multi- family residential development. Potential odor sour ces associated with construction of the Proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction acti vities. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts resulting from construc tion activity. It should be noted that any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction activity.
The Proposed Project does not contain land uses ty pically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary storage of domestic solid waste associated with the Proposed Project’s long-term operational uses could potentia lly generate temporary odors. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in co vered containers at all commercial and residential sites, and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 24
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direct ly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or fe derally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habit at Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated . A Habitat Assessment dated November 19, 2021, was completed by ELMT Consulting and is avail able for review at the City. A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the genera l vicinity of the Project Site. In addition to the literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the Project Site was conducted to document existing conditions and asses s the potential for special-status biological resources to occur within the Project Site. A field survey of the Project Site was conducted on September 22, 2021. The field surveys included an evaluation of the surrounding habitats and a focused habitat assessment for species identified in the background data search.
The proposed Project Site is a partially developed lot in the City of Victorville, on the northwest corner of Bear Valley Road and 2nd Avenue. The site was cleared nearly 15 years ago for an office/business park development with infrastructure installed and lots and streets rough graded.
Commercial businesses and institutional uses occur to the east and south, residential developments to the north and west, and partial und eveloped land to the east and west. Non- native and early successional native plant species have begun to revegetate portions of the site.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 25
Vegetation
No natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project Site. See Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs. Due to heavy anthropogenic disturbances (i.e., grading, installation of roads and infrastructure), this land cover type no longer supports natural vegetation communities, only scattered, remanent plant from the previous creosote bush scrub plant community. Plant species observed growing in disturbed areas of the Project Site included creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata ), rabbitbush ( Ericamerica nauseous ), Anderson thornbush ( Lycium andersonii ), California buckwheat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum ), match weed ( Gutierrez sarothrae ) and non-native grasses ( Schismus barbatus and Bromus tecturum ).
Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting /denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discu ssion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the Project Site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day , and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted. Wildlife detections we re based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. The Project Site p rovides limited habitat for wildlife species except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development
The survey area provides suitable foraging and cover habitat for local reptile species adapted to conditions within the Mojave Desert. The only repti lian species observed was western side- blotched lizard ( Uta stansburiana elegans ). Common reptilian species that could be expected to occur include Great Basin fence lizard ( Sceloporus occidentalis longipes ), yellow-backed spiny lizard ( Sceloporus uniformis ), Great basin gopher snake ( Pituophis catenifer deserticola ), red racer ( Coluber flagellum piceus ), and southwestern speckled rattlesnake ( Crotalus mitchellii pyrrhus ).
The mammalian observed during the field investigati on was California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi ). Common mammalian species that could be potentially occur include coyote ( Canis latrans ), jackrabbit ( Lepus californicus ), and desert cottontails ( Sylvilagus auduboni ).
Bird species detected during the field investigation include house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus ), common raven ( Corvus corax ), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura ), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys ).
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavio r were observed during the field investigation, which was conducted during nesting season. The Project Site and surrounding area provide marginal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. In addition, the Project Site has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for birds that nest on the open ground and those acclimated to routine disturbances (e.g. killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)).
Based on literature review and field survey, and ex isting site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Proje ct Site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat or regional w ildlife corridors/linkage because none exists within the area. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project Site during the field investigation. No further sur veys are recommended. However, to ensure potential impacts to this species are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 26
Mitigation Measure BIO-1:
If construction occurs between February 1st and Aug ust 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conduc ted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The bi ologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a bri ef letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no- disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between t he nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be e valuated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of constru ction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.
b) No Impact . According to the Habitat Assessment, no riparian vegetation (e.g. cottonwoods, willows, etc.) exist on the Project Site or in the adjacent habitats and no drainage channels, wetlands, or vernal pools were observed on the Project Site during the surveys. The Project Site is not identified in local plans, policies, and regulations of the CDFW or USFWS. Development of the Project Site as proposed would not result in impacts to riparian vegetation or to a sensitive natural community because these resources do not occur on the Project Site or within the area of project impacts.
Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact . As stated above, no wetlands occur in the Project Site or within the area of project impacts. Therefore, no impacts are identified or an ticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact . The Habitat Assessment states that there were no distinct wildlife corridors identified on the Project Site or in the immediate area. Additionally, the Project Site is not with in an area that includes sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.).
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nurs ery sites since the site does not include disturbances to any sensitive areas, and is surrounded by development. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact . The Proposed Project Site is a partially developed. The site was cleared nearly 15 years ago for an office/business park development with infrastructure installed and lots and streets rough graded. Commercial businesses occur to the east and south, residential developments to the north and west, and partial undeveloped land to the east and west. Non-native and early successional native plant species have begun to revegetate porti ons of the site. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 27
f) No Impact. The General Plan does not identify the Project Site, nor the vicinity to be within a habitat conservation plan. The Proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation P lan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan since there is no a dopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan in the project area or local region. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif icance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif icance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those inter red outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Explanations:
a,b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. BCR Consulting LLC. (BCR Consulting) prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project dated November 20, 2019.
The report is available for review at City offices. An archaeological records check was completed at the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center (CSUF-SCCIC) and identified 24 cultural resources investigations have taken place resulting in the recording of nine cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the Project Site. The Project Site was previously assessed for cultural resources, and one cultural r esource (an isolated prehistoric lithic flake designated P-36-12991) has been previously identified within the site’s boundaries.
An archaeological field survey of the Project Site was conducted on September 27, 2019. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the accessible Project Site. All soil exposures were carefully inspected for evidence of cultural resources.
The Project Site exhibited approximately 70 percent surface visibility. Artificial disturbances within the Project Site boundaries wer e severe and resulted from over-excavation, grading, foundation pad construction, and trenching for water lines associated with an abandoned construction project.
During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeolog ists did not identify any cultural resources within the Project Site boundaries. Excavations and grading for previous (abandoned) construction project have disturbed the entire project. Based on negative findings during the field survey combined with the high level of disturbance, development of the p roposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to archaeological or historical resources, and no further investigations or monitoring are recommended. Although BRC Consulting did not indicate the Project Site as sensitive for cultural resources, significant impacts could occur during site earthmoving activities, and the mitigation is recommended.
Additionally, The San Manuel Band of Mission Indian s (SMBMI) indicated that the Proposed Project area exists within Serrano ancestral territ ory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe.
However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given the CRM Department’s Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 28
present state of knowledge, SMBMI does not have any concerns with the project’s implementation, as planned, at this time but recomm ended language to be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions (see Mitigation Measures CR-1) :
Mitigation Measure CR-1:
In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foo t buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find.
Work on the other portions of the project outside o f the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Sa n Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-
1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence that human remains will be identified within the project area, but the presence cannot be completely ruled out.
Construction activities, particularly grading, coul d potentially disturb human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. Thus, the potential e xists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with project construction.
Therefore, possible
significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and the following mitigation measure is required as a condition of project appro val to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant:
Mitigation Measure CR-2:
If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that n o further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination o f the origin and disposition of remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5 097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritag e Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) . With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 29
VI. ENERGY. Would the project :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Explanations:
Building Energy Conservation Standards
The California Energy Conservation and Development Commission (California Energy Commission) adopted Title 24, Part 6, of the Califo rnia Code of Regulations; energy Conservation Standards for new residential and nonr esidential buildings in June 1977 and standards are updated every three years. Title 24 ensures building designs conserve energy.
The requirements allow for opportunities to incorpo rate updated new energy efficiency technologies and methods into new developments. In June 2015, the California Energy Commission (CEC) updated the 2016 Building Energy E fficiency Standards. Under the 2016 Standards, residential buildings are approximately 28 percent more energy efficient than the previous 2013 Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards improved upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and addition s and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. The CEC updated the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in May 2018. The 2019 Title 24 standards state that re sidential buildings are anticipated to be approximately 7 percent more energy efficient. When the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet the 2019 Title 24 standards would use approximately 53 percent less energy than residential units built to meet the 2016 standards. Additionally, the 2022 Building Energy E fficiency Standards will improve upon the 2019 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to residential buildings.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in October 2015. SB 350 establishes new clean energy, clean air and greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030. SB 350 also establishes tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard: 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.
Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) was signed into law Septem ber 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards. SB 100 requires the total kilowatt-hours of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers mu st consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources b y 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also includes a State pol icy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 perc ent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of ele ctricity procured to serve all State Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 30
agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shu ffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon- free electricity target.
a) Less than Significant Impact.
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project Site. Currently, the existing Project Site is vacant and does not use electricity . Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would cause a permanent increase in demand for electricity when compared to existing conditions. The increased demand is expected to be sufficiently served by the existing SCE electrical facilities. The Proposed Project consist s of residential and commercial uses. The CalEEMod outputs prepared for the Proposed Project result in electricity use of approximately
1.56 GWH/year for the residential use and 1.64 GWh/year for commercial uses. According to the California Energy Commission, the residential s ector of the Southern California Edison planning area consumed 38,498.76 GWh of electricity in 2020. 5 The increase in electricity
demand from the project would represent a 0.00407 p ercent of the overall SCE residential consumption. The commercial building sector of the Southern California Edison planning area consumed 34,373.92 GWh of electricity in 2020.6 The increase in electricity demand from the project would represent a 0.00478 percent of the ov erall SCE commercial consumption.
Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service
The Proposed Project has been designed to comply wi th the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The City would review and verify that the Proposed Project would be in compliance with the most current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Proposed Project would also be required to adhere to CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable developments, and energy efficiency. Adherence to these requirements would result in the Proposed Pro ject being efficient in terms of energy consumption. The development of the Proposed Projec t is not anticipated to affect achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard established in in the current SB 100 (refer to description above). SCE and other electricity retailer’s SB 100 goals include that end-user electricity use such as residential and commercial developments use would decrease from current emission estimates. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electrical energy resources during project construction or operation and no mitigation measures are recommended.
Natural Gas
The Proposed Project and surrounding area are servi ced by Southwest Gas Company. The Project Site is currently vacant and has no demand for natural gas. Therefore, the development of the Proposed Project will create a permanent inc rease in demand of natural gas . The
Proposed Project consist of residential and commercial uses. The CalEEMod outputs prepared for the Proposed Project estimates approximately 56,873.40 therms for the residential use and 23,539.89 therms for commercial uses. According to the California Energy Commission, the natural gas consumption of the SoCal Gas’s residential sector was 2,474,195,977 therms and
5California Energy Commission. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed November 22, 2021. 6 https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed August 15, 2021.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 31
commercial sector was 826,853,354 terms in 2020. 7 The increase in natural gas demand from the project would represent a 0.0022 percent of the southern California Southwest Gas residential consumption and 0.0028 percent for comm ercial consumption. Therefore, the natural gas demand from the Proposed Project would represent an insignificant percentage of the overall demand in Southwest Gas Company’ service area. Title 24 is a collection of energy standards that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) homes; the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will improve upon the 2 019 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The Proposed Project would be built in accordance with the 2022 energy standards of Title 24; therefore, no significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas resources, during project construction or operation are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended.
b) No Impact . The Proposed Project is designed to adhere to County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and Resource Element: Energy Conserv ation of the City General Plan to support decrease energy consumption and GHG emissio ns to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce GHG emissions, AB 32, and SB 32; therefore, the Project is consistent with AB 32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by to 2030. The Proposed P roject would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energ y efficiency. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
7California Energy Commission. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx. Accessed October 27 , 2021.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 32
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substanti al adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineat ed on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liqu efaction? X iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss o f topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is un stable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined on Tabl e 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting th e use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleonto logical resources or site unique geological feature?
X
Explanations:
a) Merrell Engineering Company, Inc. completed a Ge otechnical Investigation for the Proposed Project dated November 2005; the report was updated February 19, 2020. Information below is from both reports.
i. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in seismically active southern California with numerous fault systems in the regio n. The General Plan states that there are no known or suspected fault traces located within t he Victorville Planning Area. According to Figure S-1: Regional Seismic Hazards Map of the General Plan, the nearest fault is the North Frontal fault zone of the San Bernardino Mountains which is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Planning Area along the base of the Ord Mountains. 8 No significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
ii. No Impact. As stated, the Project Site is located in seismically active southern California with numerous fault systems in the region. According to Figure S-1. Regional Seismic Hazards Map
8 Victorville General Plan 2030; Figure S-1 “Regional Seismic Hazards”, 2008. Page 4.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 33
of the General Plan, the nearest fault is the North Frontal fault zone of the San Bernardino Mountains which is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Planning Area along the base of the Ord Mountains. However, to ensure impacts are less than significant the Proposed Project shall comply with the Victorville Municipal Building Development Codes and the latest adopted version of the California Building Code. Th e Proposed Project would be adequately reinforced for potential earthquakes. Less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
iii. No Impact. According to the General Plan, the Project Site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction as the potential for li quefaction hazards are limited to the Mojave River floodplain and its tributary stream crossings where groundwater is shallow and loose sandy soils occur. 9 The Mojave River is located approximately 2.5 mile east of the Project Site.
Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
iv. No Impact. The General Plan identifies natural hazards, which include seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, an d liquefaction, along with slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, fl ooding, and wildland fires. 10 According to Figure S-3: Slope Hazards, the Project Site is not within a slope hazard area. 11 . With adherence to the latest adopted version of the California Bui lding Code, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Pr oject Site is located in an area mapped as underlain by alluvial soil consisting of poorly graded sand, sand with silt, sand-silt mixtures and some silty clays. To e nsure impacts are less than significant the Proposed Project shall comply with the Victorville Municipal Building Development Codes and the latest adopted version of the California Building Code. The Proposed Project would be adequately reinforced for potential earthquakes. Less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact . According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, the Project Site is located in an area with middle to early Pleistocene Alluvial F an Deposits that eroded from the surrounding mountains.
Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. As stated above, Figure S-3: Slo pe Hazards of the General Plan shows that the Project Site is not within a slope hazards area. With adherence to the latest adopted version of the California Building Code, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Seismically induced lateral spreading involves prim ary lateral movement of earth materials over underlying materials which are liquefied due to gro und shaking. Merrell Engineering’s updated February 19, 2020 report concludes that the Project Site’s groundwater level is greater than 200 feet below the existing ground surface. According to the General Plan, the Project Site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction as the potential for liquefaction hazards are limited to the Mojave River floodplain and its trib utary stream crossings where groundwater is shallow and loose sandy soils occur. The Mojave River is located approximately 2.5 mile north of the Project Site. Given the Project Site’s distance from a liquefaction impact area, seismically induced lateral spreading is not anticipated to occur.
9 Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-3.
10 Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-1.
11 Victorville General Plan 2030; Figure S-3 “Slope H azard”, 2008. Page S-8.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 34
According to the 2008 General Plan EIR, subsidence from groundwater withdrawal in the Planning Area is considered unlikely. Pumping of area water wells is not expected to affect the aquifer sufficiently to cause subsidence in the area. The V ictor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority’s (VVWRA) three treatment plants and the City of Adelanto recharge water into the local aquifer. Based on the City General Plan EIR page 5. 6-512 , subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in the Planning Area is considered unlik ely. Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City S taff would ensure no significant impacts would occur.
Given the characteristics of the geologic unit which the Project Site is located on, compliance with the 2019 California Building Code, and review/appro val of the proposed grading plan by the Victorville City Engineer shall ensure that signifi cant impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction do not occu r. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. Any project within the area of Southern California shall meet the most current California Building Code standards to minimize the potential impact caused by an earthquake. Therefore, the potential for instability occurring at this Project Site is less than significant with pro per construction methods and development standards as defined in the City’s Municipal Code a nd the current California Building Code regulations. Therefore, no impacts are identified o r anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact . Expansive (or shrink-swell) soil behavior is attr ibutable to the water-holding capacity of clay minerals and can adversely affect the structural integrity of facilities including underground pipelines. According to the G eotechnical Investigations, a sample of the subsurface soil was tested for expansive potential and test results identified an expansion index of 0, which indicates very low expansion potential. The Final Geotechnical Investigation and recommendations are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The Proposed Project shall also adhere to 2019 California Building Code. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact . The Proposed Project will connect to the existing sewer system (eight-inch sewer line) along the east portion of the Project Site. The use of septic tanks would not occur on Project Site.
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed at the Project Site.
No impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated . BCR Consulting’s November 20, 2019 report includes a letter from Western Science Center documenting the results of a paleontological resources records search conducted for the Proposed Project. The letter states that the geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entire ly as old alluvial deposits dating from the Pleistocene epoch. Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be of high paleontological value, and while the Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1-mile radius, there are numerous localities across southe rn California found in similarly mapped sediments. Pleistocene alluvial units are known to contain extinct megafauna remains including those associated with mastodon ( Mammut pacificus ), mammoth ( Mammuthus columbi ), saber-tooth cat ( Smilodon fatalis ), ancient horse ( Equus sp. ), camel ( Camelops hesternus ), and many more.
Fossil specimen recovered from the Project Site wou ld be considered scientifically significant.
Monitoring of these excavations is recommended and sampling of the back dirt may yield additional evidence of small fragments or specimens . Therefore, to ensure potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to a less tha n significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
12 http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lafco/proposals/3082/3082_ede_draft_eir.pdf Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 35
Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units and may uncover paleontological resources. The project will therefore be subjected to a paleontological monitoring program designed to meet the standards, policies, a nd guidelines of the San Bernardino County Museum Department of Earth Sciences for excavations that would impact older Quaternary alluvium. The program requi rements would be based on the depth of older alluvium and final project design. The required monitoring program shall be submitted to the City of Victorville prior to th e issuance of a permit for any ground disturbing activities, subject to review and approv al by the Zoning Administrator or their designee.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either direct ly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regu lation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . According to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4, when making a determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions, the “lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a partic ular project, whether to (1) use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use.” Moreover, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c) provides that “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts” on the conditio n that “the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
The Project Site is located in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB encompasses the desert potion of San Bernardino County. The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the City of Victorville that includes the project area. To assist local agencies in determining if a project’s emissions could pose a significant threat to air quality, the MDAQMD has prepared the CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, August 2016. The air and dust emissions from the construction and operational use of the Proposed Project were evaluated and compared to the MDAQMD air quality thresholds to determine significance (refer to Section III.).
Additionally, the City of Victorville contribute s to a regional partnership with the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG). The San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan identifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, identifies the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce the GHG emissions, and identifies local measures that were selected by the SBCOG to reduce GHG emissions and to achieve the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan’s identified GHG reduction target.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 36
Construction and Operational Emissions
Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Many gases make up the group of pollutants that contribute to global climate cha nge. However, three gases are currently evaluated and represent the highest concertation of greenhouse gases (GHGs): Carbon dioxide (CO 2), Methane (CH 4), and Nitrous oxide (N 2O). MDAQMD provides guidance methods and/or Emission Factors that are used for evaluating a pro ject’s emissions in relation to the thresholds.
A threshold of 100,000 MTCO 2e per year has been adopted by MDAQMD. The modeled emissions anticipated from the Proposed Project during both construction and operational phases, are compared to the MDAQMD threshold and shown below in Table 9 and Table 10. Compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan ensures that development of new residential and commercial build ings include high energy-efficiency standards such as use of renewable energy source an d management of facilities to reduce emissions due to the use of electricity and natural gas.
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project are not anticipated to exceed the MDAQMD’s GHG emissions threshold.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environme nt. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 9
Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO 2 CH 4 N20
Demolition 8.7 0.0 0.0
Site Preparation 52.0 0.0 0.0
Grading 209. 4 0.1 0.0
Building Construction 76.4 0.0 0.0
Paving 57.5 0.0 0.0
Architectural Coating 3.2 0.0 0.0
Total MTCO 2e 986.5
MDAQMD GHG Emissions Threshold 100,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions
Table 10
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO
2 CH 4 N 20
Area 4.6 0.0 0.0
Energy 1,204.6 0.1 0.0
Mobile 8,975.0 0.5 0.6
Waste 156.7 9.3 0.0
Water 281.9 2.2 0.0
Total MTCO 2e 11,082. 5
MDAQMD GHG Emissions
Threshold 100,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 37
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law establishes a limit on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the sta te of California to reduce state-wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Cali fornia Assembly and Senate expanded upon AB 32 with Senate Bill (SB) 32, which mandates a 40 % reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 (California Legislative Information, 2016). In January 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a plan (SB 32 Scop ing Plan1) that charted a path towards the GHG reduction goal using all technologically fe asible and cost-effective means (CARB, 2017). 13 In response to these initiatives, an informal project partnership, led by the San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG), compiled a GHG emis sions inventory and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 25 Partnership Cities of San Bernardino County, which includes the City of Victorville.
Under the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City works with regional agencies to ensure greenhouse gases are re duced. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Regional Gr eenhouse Gas Reduction Plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, AB 32, and SB 32 with the implementation of the following mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appl icant/developer shall complete a current Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table in accordance with the City’s adopted version of the San Bernardino County Region al Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 2021, while achieving the minimum number of po ints necessary to comply with the City of Victorville Greenhouse Gas reductions goals.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2
To the extent feasible, the City of Victorville Pla nning Department shall verify incorporation of the identified Screening Table Mea sures within the Project building plans/site designs and/or verify compliance with an updated version of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Screening Table prior to the issuance of building permit(s).
13 San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2021. Page ES-1 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 38
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard of excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X
Explanations:
a) No Impact. Post-construction activities of the proposed devel opment would include standard maintenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc.) which would not require the routine transport or use of hazardous materials at the Project Site.
The Proposed Project would be subject to the Nation al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Requirements of the pe rmit include development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Preventio n Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with construction activities and 2) iden tify, construct, and implement storm water pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control and abate pollutants.
The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), dated May 17, 2021, was prepared for the Proposed Project by DRC Engineering and is available for review at the City. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of County of San Bernardino Stormw ater and Runoff Management and Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 39
Discharge Controls. Implementation of the WQMP is e nforceable under the County of San Bernardino Stormwater and Runoff Management and Dis charge Controls. Review and approval of the WQMP would ensure that all potential polluta nts of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project Site.
According to the WQMP, the Proposed Project does not include uses that could pose a high threat to water quality, including groundwater quality, wh ich cannot be treated by the proposed bioretention basin. Less than significant impacts a re identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous or toxic materials transported in associa tion with construction of the Project may include items such as oils, paints, and fuels. All materials required during construction would be kept in compliance wit h State and local regulations. Post- construction activities would include standard main tenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc .) Components of the Proposed Project that may involve potential impacts from hazardous materials include the gas station, and underground storage tanks (USTs). A permit to operate a UST sys tem is required per California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, California Health and Safety Code Section (25280- 25299.8). These regulations mandate the testing and frequent inspections of the UST facilities.
The Project Applicant would be required to prepare a Spill Contingency Plan to be filed with the County of San Bernardino Hazardous Materials Department. All operations of the fueling station and related USTs would be required to comply with all federal, state and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. With implementation of required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for material handling, and complia nce with all other applicable regulations, potential impacts from the use of hazardous materials is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. No existing or known proposed schools occur within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest school is Lomitas Elementary Scho ol, located approximately 0.40-mile northeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Propo sed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or known proposed schoo l. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Su bstances Control EnviroStor (accessed 8/5/2021), the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
14 Therefore, no impacts are identified or
anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. The Project Site is located approximately six (6) miles north of the Hesperia Airport.
The General Plan does not identify the Project Site within an airport hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard related to airport land uses for people residing or working in the area. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) No Impact. According to the City General Plan Figure S-5, Bear Valley Road is designated as an evacuation route throughout the City
15 . During construction the contractor would be requi red to
14 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myad dress=victorville Accessed August 5, 2021. 15 City of Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-19
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 40
maintain adequate emergency access for emergency ve hicles as required by the City. Post construction activities at the site would not inter fere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue and would be maintained for ingress/egress at all times. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
g) No Impact. The Project site is vacant and is surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire r isks, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the unc ontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dis charge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or i nterfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- o r off-site; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite; X iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or;
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a wa ter quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 41
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incor porated. The Proposed Project consists of commercial, retail, office, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately
34.74 acres. The Proposed Project would disturb mor e than one acre and therefore would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina tion System (NPDES) permit requirements.
The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State’s General Constr uction permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activities that causes the disturbance of one acre or more. The General Construction permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of the SWPPP i s to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of stormwater associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the construction site during and after construction. The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). A Preliminary WQMP for the Proposed Project has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Victorville. The WQMP was prepared to meet NPDES Area Wide Stormwater Program requirements.
Mandatory compliance with the Proposed Project’s W QMP as approved by the City, in addition to compliance with NPDES Permit requirements, would ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately tr eated prior to being discharged from the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Prop osed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements w ith the inclusion of the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure WTR-1
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain coverage under the statewide general NPDES permit for control of const ruction and post-construction related storm water in accordance with the requirem ents of the Small MS4 General Permit. In addition, the applicant shall:
• Prepare a project specific Storm Water Pollutio n Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required in the NPDES permit and shall identify site-specific erosion and sediment control best management practices that will be implemented; • The SWPPP shall be applicable to all areas of the project site including construction areas, access roads to and through the site, and staging and stockpile areas; • Temporary best management practices for all comp onents of the project must be implemented until such time as permanent post-const ruction best management practices are in place and functioning; and
• All excess sediment excavated as part of the Project that is not used onsite should be stockpiled in a location such that it will not be transported by wind or water into a surface water. An adequate combination of sediment and erosion control BMPs must be implemented and maintained to temporarily stabilize all stockpiled sediment until such time that it is reused and/or permanently stabilized.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 42
Mitigation Measure WTR-2
The applicant/developer shall prepare and implement a comprehensive Spill Prevention and Response Plan for the Project, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer (or their designee) prior to the issuance of any associated building or grading permit. This plan should outline the site-specific monitoring requirements and list the best management practices necessary to prevent hazardous material spills or to contain and cleanup a hazardous material spill, should one occur.
b) No Impact. The Project Site is located within the service area of Victorville Water District (VWD).
As stated in the 2020 Victorville Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), VWD is located in the southwest region of San Bernardino County, California. VWD lies north of the San Bernardino Mountains in the Mojave Desert, approximately 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles. VWD provides water services to approximately 36,700 cus tomer connections, serving a population of approximately 127,700 within its 85 square mile service area. In 2020, VWD had a total of 36,673 connections and produced 21,865 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water and 722 AFY of RW. 16
According to the UWMP, during a multiple dry-year period, VWD’s total water supply is projected to be 32,699 acre-feet (AF) by 2045, while the total water demand is projected to be 32,699 AF in the same year, resulting in neither surplus or deficit.
17 According to DCR Engineering Inc, the Proposed
Project, which consists of commercial, retail, offi ce, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres (18.67 acres use would be residential and 16.07 acres use would be commercial) is anticipated to result in a total water demand of 151 AF per year on average. The change in land use designation/zoning would not result in a significant increase in projected water demand at the Project Site which was previously approved for Office/Business Park uses. Based on the UWMP conclusions which include the City’s General Plan land use data, the VWD will have sufficient water to supply the Proposed Project. As such, the Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede substantial groundwater management of the basin. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact.
i-iv. DRC Engineering, Inc. completed a Water Quali ty Management Plan (WQMP) dated May 12, 2021 and Preliminary Hydrology Report for the P roposed Project dated May 17, 2021; both are available for review at the City offices. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, in the existing condition, the Project Site is currently mass graded as part of the previously approved Parcel Map No. 17603 and the en tire site drains northeasterly toward 2nd Avenue. The flows are picked up by a 14’ wide City standard drawing D-02 catch basin at a sump in 2nd Avenue near the northeast corner. The catch basin connects to the existing double 48” corrugated steel pipes across 2nd Avenue and flowing to the east. There are two master-planned storm drain box culverts constructed to accept off-site flows and onsite flows. There is a 5’x4’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) that is designed to accept the off-site flows from west of 3rd Avenue, that passes through the subject property with discharge to the north into the single-family subdivision. The s econd master-planned storm drain is an 8’x4’ RCB culvert that is designed to accept off-si te flows from south of Bear Valley Road and flows north through the subject property. The f acility is designed to accept the runoff generated by the Project Site.
16 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 1-4 17 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-1: Supply and Demand Comparison. Page 7-3 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 43
As stated in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the proposed development will be consistent with the existing condition in terms of the overall drainage pattern. The site drains to the northeast corner of the site and will use the existing City-maintained box-culvert storm drain that passes through the site from Bear Valley Road north to where is crosses 2nd Avenue.
In the proposed condition, the site can break down into four distinctive drainage areas.
Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the propos ed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, three drive-thru fast-food resta urant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast -food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a mediation garden, parking lots and landscaping planters. Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- story storage building a nd single story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high-density residential area (apartments) access drives, parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infil tration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site and crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total130. 63 cubic feet second runoff for a 100-year storm and 72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Therefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224 cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff.
Additionally, there are no streams or rivers on, o r in the vicinity of, the Project Site. With adherence to a Final WQMP approved by the City of Victorville, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing dra inage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would re sult in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. No significant adverse im pacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact . As shown on Figure S-2: Flood Hazards Map of the of the General Plan, the Proposed Project is within Zone X. Areas within Zone X are s ubject to flooding in the event of a 500-year flood, are areas subject to a 100-year flood with average floodwater depths anticipated to be less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and are areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood. Therefore, the Proposed Pr oject is not anticipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as no flood hazards traverse the project area, nor is the Project Site subject to inundation by seiche or mudflow hazards. Due to the Project Site’s location in the High Desert, there are no impacts related to tsunamis. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) No Impact. There is no sustainable groundwater management pla n in the area, although the underlying groundwater basin is adjudicated. Water supply will be provided by the Victorville Water District and that agency is a party to the adjudication and reports to the Watermaster. The Proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 44
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less T
han
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
Explanations:
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project consist of commercial, retail, office, self-storage, and multi- family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres. The Project includes approximately 230,632 square feet of commercial, retail, office and self-storage uses on 16.07 acres, and up to 376 multi-family residential dwelling units on 18.67 acres with a density of 20.14dwelling units per acre. Similar uses are existing adjacent to the Pro ject Site and therefore the Proposed Project would provide uses consistent with development in t his area of the City. There would be no division of an established community, but expansion of similar uses in the area. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project will require approval a Genera l Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current General Plan land use designation of Co mmercial (C) to Mixed-Use (MU) land use designation for a mixed-use development, and a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone. Surrounding land uses include residential development, commercial uses, and institutional uses (e.g. schools and hospitals). The proposed mixed-use development woul d be consistent with existing uses in the area and would provide for a continuation of and ex pansion in services to both residents and workers in the area. With approval of the GPA and CZ, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Pan and would not cause a signific ant environmental impact as all surrounding uses are designated for or developed with similar uses. There would be no anticipated impacts to adjacent developments. Therefore, no impacts are id entified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mi neral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Explanations:
a,b) No Impact . According to City of Victorville General Plan Figure RE-1, the Project Site occurs in the MRZ-3a Zone. MRZ-3a areas are defined as containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Further exploration work within these areas could Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 45
result in the reclassification of specific localities into MRZ-2A or MRZ-2b categories. However, the Project Site and vicinity are not designated in the General Plan for mining. Furthermore the size of the Project Site, and the existing surrounding uses would prohibit the use of the Project Site for mining of any mineral resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource or the loss mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the reside nts of the state. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
XIII. NOISE. Would the proposal result in :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a p rivate airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A Noise Impact Analysis dated September 28,2021 was prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is on file with the City for review. The report is summarized herein. Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it cause s actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithm ic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.
The Noise Element of Victorville General Plan identifies hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches and sensitive wildlife habitats as being sensitive to noise.
Excessive levels of noise can
damage human physical health, psychological stabili ty, social cohesion, property values, and economic productivity. The control of noise, therefore, is an essential component in creating a safe, compatible, and productive environment.
Long-term noise level measurements taken for the analysis were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. A description of the location of each sensitive receptor at which measurements were collected is provided below.
R1:Location R1 represents the existing noise sensit ive residence at 16595 Jasmine Street, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site. R1 was placed at the private outdoor living areas Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 46
(backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2:Location R2 represents the Victor Elementary School District building at 12219 2 nd Avenue, approximately 212 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R3:Location R3 represents the Desert Valley Hospita l at 16850 Bear Valley Road, approximately 115 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L2, is used t o describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4:Location R4 represents the 20 High Desert Funera l Chapel & Cremation at 16545 Bear Valley Road, approximately 190 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 was placed at the building façade.
A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L3, is used to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R5:Location R5 represents the existing noise sensit ive residence at 12244 3 rd Avenue, approximately 111 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R5 was placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement near this location, L4, is used t o describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Construction Noise
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Even though the site is vacant and graded, this analysis assumes that some site preparation and grading will be required as part of the Project construction.
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project Site boundary) to each receiver location. According to the noise analysis completed, the construction noise levels are expected to range fro m 58.6 to 75.4 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 70.6 to 75.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
To evaluate whether the Proposed Project will gener ate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during co nstruction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 47
Operational Noise
The operational noise analysis is intended to descr ibe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: roof-top air condi tioning units, drive-thru speakerphones, trash enclosure activity, parking lot activity, and gas station activity.
The multi-family residential land use
is considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use. However, the proposed multi-family residential land use will experience normally acceptable exterior noise levels of ranging from 56.8 to 64.7 dBA CNEL. For normally acceptable exterior noise levels, the Land Use Compatibility Standards indicate that the land use is satisfactory, based upon the a ssumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insultation requirements.
Table 11
Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location 1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA
Leq) 2
Noise Level
Standards
(dBA Leq) 3
Noise Level
Standards
Exceeded? 4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 46.6 38.3 65 55 No No
R2 52.2 39.0 65 55 No No
R3 52.7 48.5 65 55 No No
R4 50.9 48.5 65 55 No No
R5 53.7 42.4 65 55 No No
MF1 48.2 38.1 65 55 No No
MF2 47.5 35.1 65 55 No No
MF3 60.5 50.2 65 55 No No
MF4 57.3 43.6 65 55 No No
MF5 63.8 48.8 65 55 No No
MF6 64.9 52.7 65 55 No No
Reference: Victorville Connection: Noise Impact Analysis
Using the reference noise levels to represent the Proposed Project operations, Urban Crossroads calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project Site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. As shown, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 46.6 to 53.7 dBA Leq. The daytime hourly noise levels at the future on-site Project receiver locations are expected to range from 47.5 to 64.9 dBA Leq. The Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 38.3 to 48.5 dBA Leq. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the future on-site Project receiver locations are expected to range from 35.1 to 52.7 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity.
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Victorville exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. The operational noise levels associated with the Proposed Project will satisfy the City of Victorville 65 dBA Leq daytime and 55 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 48
Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. To analyze vibration impact s originating from the operation and construction of vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual , (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage were used in the noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations.
The nearest noise sensitive buildings to the Projec t site are residential structures such a tract homes with a maximum acceptable continuous vibratio n threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec). At distances ranging from 47 to 212 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.004 t o 0.035 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PP V (in/sec) for older residential buildings, the typical Project construction vibration levels will satisfy the building damage thresholds at all receiver locations. In addition, the typical construction vi bration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries. The impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
c) No Impact. The Project Site is located outside of an airport zone. The Project Site is located approximately six (6) miles north from the nearest airport which is identified as the Hesperia Airport.
Additionally, the development of the Proposed Project may cause short-term noise level increases during construction, but during operations shall not exceed the City’s residential standard of noise levels up to 60 decibels (dB). Therefore, no signif icant impacts are identified for airport land use plan or within the vicinity of any public or private airstrip that would be affected.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth i n an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 49
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project includes 376 dwelling units on an approximately 18.67-acre parcel. The Proposed Project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C) to Mixed- Use (MU) to allow for a mixed-use development, and a Change of Zone (CZ) from the current General Commercial Transitional (C-2T) zone to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone. Under the existing zoning of C-2T, residential uses are not permitted. Land uses and development standards are outlined by the Planned Unit Development itself which vary with each existing and future PUD.
The General Plan states that there is approximatel y 3.40 persons per household in the City of Victorville. The Proposed Project would therefore g enerate an estimated population of approximately 1,278 persons with approval of the PU D. Buildout of the 18.67 acres under the current General Plan and zoning designations at the maximum allowable use, would result in a population increase of approximately zero as no residential is allowed in the C-2T zone.
An evaluation of potential air quality impacts rela ted to the buildout under the current General Plan and the Proposed Project is presented in Section III Air Quality. Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate operational emissions associated with the current General Plan Land Use designations and with the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, operational impacts resulting from either development under the existing General Plan Land Us e designations or the Proposed Project would not exceed MDAQMD thresholds. Consequently, t he change in land use designations/zoning along with the increased popula tion would not result in a conflict or obstruction to the implementation of the AQMP .
Sections XIII (Noise), XV (Public Services), XVI (T ransportation) and XVIX (Utilities and Service Systems) provide evaluations of the of the Proposed Project’s potential impacts in the areas of noise-generation, vehicular traffic and public serv ices and utility demand impacts from the PUD which includes the residential component (populatio n of 1,278). There would be no impacts to future residences from project-generated noise exce eding the City’s standards. No impacts associated with trip generation or vehicle miles travelled would exceed thresholds; development of the site with 100% commercial would result in a greater number of trips than the PUD. It was determined that sufficient capacity exists in the e xisting and projected infrastructure systems to meet the demands of the Proposed Project, and that the payment of development impact fees would provide the financial means for public servic es to continue serving the site as developed.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are ident ified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact . The Project Site currently vacant. The Proposed Project would provide 376 multi-family dwelling units and would not reduce the number of e xisting housing units, displace people, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 50
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need f or new or physically altered governmental facilities, the con struction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? ( X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Explanations:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided to the area by the City of Victorville Fire Department. The closest fire station to the Project Site is located at 17008 Silica Drive, Victorville, approximately 0.45 mile northeast of the Project Site. The Proposed Project is required to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including type and building construction, fire sprinklers, and paved fire access. Building plans will be reviewed and approved by the City and the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of permits. In addition to customers of the commercial uses, the Proposed Proj ect would accommodate approximately 1,278 residents (based on 3.40 people per household) and is in an urbanized area that occurs within the existing fire service area. The Proposed Project would be expected to receive adequate fire protection services and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided to the City of Victorville by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. The closest station to the Project Site is located at 14455 Civic Drive in the City of Victorville, wh ich is approximately 2.7 miles to the west. The Proposed Project would generate commercial use customers and approximately 1,278 residents (3.40 people per household). According to the City General Plan EIR (2008), the Police Department requests for more officers are based on service needs and officers have been added annually for the last decade based on professional judgment to meet demands. Developer Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to law enforcement are identified or anticipated, no mitigation measures are required .
c) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the boundary of the Victor Elementary School (VESD) and the Victor Valley Unio n High School Districts (VVUHSD). The VESD Quadrant Map identifies schools that would provide educational services to the project area including Galileo School of Gifted and Talented Education (GA TE) (15999 Warwick St. ), Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 51
Mojave Vista School of Cultural Arts (16100 Burwood Ave.), Lomitas Community of Learners (Independent Studies) (12571 1st Ave.), Endeavour S chool of Exploration (12403 Ridgecrest Road) and Mountain View Montessori (17000 Silica Ro ad). The VVUHSD Boundaries Map shows that Goodwill High School (12350 Mojave Drive), Victor Valley High School (16500 Mojave Drive) and Lakeview Leadership Academy (1284 Tamari sk Road) provide educational services to the project area. Using the Student Generation R ates (SGR) provided by the VESD , the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approxi mately 341 students. Using the VVUHSD SGR, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 59 students. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 400 students. The methodology of estimated students was calculated by multiplying the proposed 379 dwel lings units by each districts Multi-Family’s SGR (VESD .901 & VVUHSD.1566). Furthermore, the payment of development impact fees will ensure impacts related to school facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the 2008 General Plan EIR, outdoor recreation resources in the City are identified as public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. As of 2008 the City maintained 409.9 acres of parkland, which includes 23 parks and golf courses. The City strives to comply with the 1975 Quimby Act for park s requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The City’s goal is to maintain a ratio of three acres of park land per 1,000 popul ation. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,289 residents (3.40 people per household) and therefore result in the need for approximately three acres of parkland to meet the City’s goal. The Proposed Project ’s residential component includes 2.81 acres of common landscaped open space areas and other private recreational/open space . Additionally, with the payment of development impact fees and, impacts to parks are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project population of 1,289 will increase demand for other public facilities/services, such as libraries, community recreation centers, and/or animal shelters. The Project Proponent would be required to pay the applicable development impact fees, property tax, and utility user tax to provide revenue for these facilities. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect oth er public facilities or directly require the construction of new or modified facilities. No sign ificant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing n eighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 52
Explanations:
a,b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, outdoor recreation resources in the City are identified as public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. As of 2008 t he City maintains 409.9 acres of parkland, which includes 23 parks and golf courses. The City strives to comply with the 1975 Quimby Act for parks requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The City’s goal is to maintain a ratio of three acres of park land per 1,000 population. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,289 residents (3.40 people per household) and therefore result in the ne ed for approximately three acres of parkland to meet the City’s goal. With the provision of 2.81 acres of common open space and recreational facilities for the on-site residents and with the payment of City development impact fees and, impacts to parks and recreational facilities are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION. Would the proposal result in :
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or poli cy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b)(1)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometri c design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorp orated. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated December 3, 2020 and updated Traffic Impact Analysis Memorandum dated November 9, 2021 was prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. and are available for review at City offices. The analyses were prepared to provide an assessment of potential traffic impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. The purpose of the TIA was to eva luate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development o f the Proposed Project, and to recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation syst em operational conditions. As directed by City of Victorville staff, the TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, and Caltrans Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines.
Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley R oad, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue.
Trips generated by the Proposed Project were estima ted based on trip generation rates as provided in the Institute of Transportation Enginee rs (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition, 2017. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 9,347 trips.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 53
TJW Engineering prepared a project traffic study sc oping agreement that was approved by City staff prior to the preparation of the TIA. The agre ement provided an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analy sis methodology. The following study area intersections were analyzed in the TIA:
Table 12
Intersection Analysis Locations
ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction
1 I-15 SB Ramps / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorvill e
2 I-15 NB Ramps / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
3 7th Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
4 3rd Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
5 2nd Ave / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville
6 Ridgecrest Rd / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorvill e
7 Hesperia Rd / Jasmine St City of Victorville
8 2nd Ave / Jasmine St City of Victorville
9 2nd Ave / Silica Dr City of Victorville
10 3rd Ave / Silica Dr City of Victorville
11 3rd Ave / Sequoia St City of Victorville
12 2nd Ave / Sequoia St City of Victorville
13 3rd Ave / Project Driveway 1 City of Victorville
14 3rd Ave / Project Driveway 2 City of Victorville
15 Project Driveway 3 / Bear Valley Rd City of Vict orville 16 Project Driveway 4 / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville 17 Project Driveway 5 / Bear Valley Rd City of Victorville 18 2nd Ave / Project Driveway 6 City of Victorville
19 2nd Ave / Project Driveway 7 City of Victorville
20 2nd Ave. / Project Driveway 8 City of Victorvill e
Specific off-site impacts and improvements required at the study area intersections have been approved by the City Traffic Engineer and will be included as mitigation measures as noted below.
The Proposed Project would therefore not conflict w ith a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1
The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for implementing all required mitigation measures as outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the subject project on December 3, 2020 by TJW Engineering, inc., as appro ved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Adherence to the subject mitigation measures shall be included in associated street improvement plans and the final map as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Faculties
Within the study area, Class II bike lanes exist on Hesperia Road from Donert Street to Nisqualli Road and on Sequoia Street from Cottonwood Avenue to Hesperia Road.
According to the City of Victorville Non-Motorized Plan and City of Hesperia Non-Motorized Plan, bicycle facilities are planned on the following roadways within the study area:
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 54
Class I Off-Street Bicycle Path
• Jasmine Street west of Hesperia Road
Class II On-Street Bicycle Lanes
• Sequoia Avenue east of Interstate 15
• 7th Avenue south of Bear Valley Road
Class III On-Street Bicycle Share Routes
• 7th Avenue north of Bear Valley Road
• 3rd Avenue north of Bear Valley Road
The City of Victorville Non-Motorized Transportation Plan map shows a Class III Bicycle Path on 3rd Avenue along the western frontage of the Projec t Site and a Class II Bicycle Path is located along Bear Valley Road along the southern frontage of the Project Site.
Existing Public Transit Services
The City of Victorville is served by the Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) which provides bus service throughout the Victor Valley region. The ne arest transit service is VVTA Route 53 and Route 55, with stops at the intersections of Bear V alley Rd/2nd Ave and Jasmine St/2nd Ave.
Route 53 runs between Victor Valley Mall and Victor Valley College primarily via Bear Valley Road. Route 55 runs between Victorville Transfer Ce nter and Victor Valley College primarily via Arrowhead Drive and Bear Valley Road.
According to the Victor Valley Transit Interactive Map, Route 53: “Victor Valley Mall- Victor Valley College” runs along Bear Valley Road and 2nd Avenue . The nearest stop is located on 2nd Avenue east of Project Site. 18
The Proposed Project design features will be reviewed and approved during the City’s Site Plan review process to ensure that the project would not impede existing bicycle paths and transit.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to are id entified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The VMT analysis utilized the San Bernardino County Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM). The SBTAM model was utilized to develop the project VMT per service population to be compared to the City’s General Pla n Buildout scenario VMT per service population to identify project impacts. The City’s General Plan Buildout scenario VMT per service population data was obtained from the online San Be rnardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) screening tool. The project VMT per service population was estimated using SBTAM model runs. The SBTAM socioeconomic database for th e City’s General Plan Buildout (2040) scenario were updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. The project TAZ was utilized to calculate project specific VMT per serv ice population. Model runs were conducted for this updated model after incorporating the project land uses. Since the project is a mixed land use type, Origin/Destination (OD) methods were used as recommended in the City guidelines. Project- generated VMT was extracted from these SBTAM model runs using the origin-destination trip matrix and by multiplying the matrix by the final a ssignment skims. The City’s General Plan Buildout scenario and SBTAM model run’s (as outline d above) VMT per service population are summarized below. As shown in Table 13 below, the p roject’s VMT per service population is
10.2 percent lower than the City’s General Plan Bui ldout scenario VMT per service population.
Therefore, based on the City guidelines, the project will not have significant VMT impacts.
18 Victor Valley Transit Interactive Map. https://vvta.org/interactive-map/ Accessed January 3, 2022.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 55
Table 13
General Plan Buildout (2040) VMT Per Service Population Scenario City of Victorville Project Difference Per centage Difference
General Plan
Buildout
36.2 32.5 (3.7) (10.2%)
Therefore, based on the City guidelines, the projec t will not have significant VMT impacts. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact . The Proposed Project would not create substantial hazards due to a site design feature or incompatible use. Site access is planned via two full-access driveways and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full-access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue (refer to Figure 1). Development of the driveways a s proposed is not anticipated to result in significant hazards. Discretionary actions for the Proposed Project by the City of Victorville includes approval of the project design. Therefore, no signi ficant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project design features will be review ed and approved during the City’s Site Plan review process to ensure that the project would not impede emergency access throughout the residential developments in the area. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in public resources code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California native American Tribe, and that is:
X
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
X
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 56
Explanations:
a) i-ii) Less Than Significant Impact. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) was approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014. AB52 specifies that CEQA projects with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the bill requir es lead agency consultation with California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area. The legislation further re quires that the tribe-requested consultation be completed prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.
BCR Consulting LLC initiated a Cultural Resource As sessment for the Proposed Project in November 2019, which included communication with Native American tribes.
The City of Victorville, as Lead Agency, is respons ible for AB-52 and SB-18 consultation, as applicable. The City sent letters in compliance wit h AB52 to the following tribal representatives the week of December 13, 2021.
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
The City received one response from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians received one comment from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians seeking inclusion of specific mitigation measures which have been incorporated herein (see Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and any other noticed tribes for review and comment shall be contacted, as detailed in CR- 1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance a nd treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by t he archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for r eview and comment for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI and any othe r noticed tribes for review and comment elect to place a monitor on-site.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing repo rts, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBM I and any other noticed tribes for review and comment. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 57
with SMBMI and any other noticed tribes for review and comment throughout the life of the project.
XVIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater trea tment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact. VWD provides water services to approximately 36,700 customer connections, serving a population of approximately 127,700 within its 85 square mile service area.
In 2020, VWD had a total of 36,673 connections and produced 21,865 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water and 722 AFY of RW. 19 The Proposed Project is estimated to require 150 a cre- feet/year which is less than 0.5 percent of VVWD’s 2020 domestic water production. Therefore, no new water facilities would be required to serve the Proposed Project.
The Proposed Project is within the Victor Valley Wa stewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) service area. According to the 2019 Victorville Sew er System Management Plan, the City owns approximately 437 miles of gravity sewers and 1.1 miles of force mains. There are two treatment plants that the City discharges its wastewater to: the VVWRA regional wastewater treatment plant; and the City of Victorville’s Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWWTP). Approximately 80% of sewer flows are conveyed to the VVWRA regional wastewater treatment plant. The remaining 20% of the collected sewer flows are discharged to the City-owned IWWTP. The Master Plans for sewer and wastewater treatment plants are based on development demands provided for in the General Plans of jurisdictions served. Based on a return flow of 60% of water demands, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 0.5 MGD of wastewater. In 2020, the VVWRA wastewater plant had a capacity of 18 MGD with treated effluent flows to the Mojave River capped at 14 MGD 20
19 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Page 1-4 20 Lahontan RWQCB May 7-7, 2020 Board Meeting Agenda Item 7 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 58
With a minimum 4 MGD remaining permitted (not desig n) capacity, it is estimated that sufficient capacity remains at the treatment plant to serve the Proposed Project and no new facilities would be required.
As stated in Section X above, the site drains to th e northeast corner of the site and will use the existing City-maintained box-culvert storm drain th at passes through the site from Bear Valley Road north to where is crosses 2nd Avenue. In the proposed condition, the site can break down into four distinctive drainage areas. Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the proposed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, thr ee drive-thru fast-food restaurant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast-food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a mediation garden , parking lots and landscaping planters.
Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- sto ry storage building and single-story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high-density residential area (apartments) access drives, parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infiltration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site a nd crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total 130.63 cubic fe et second runoff for a 100-year storm and
72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Th erefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224 cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff and not impact the existing off-site drainage system.
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrica l service to the project area. The Proposed Project will receive electrical power through conne ction to Southern California Edison’s existing underground power lines along the southern frontage the Project Site and adjacent to Bear Valley Road. Southwest Gas provides natural gas service to the vicinity and the Proposed Project Site.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will receive natural gas from Southwest Gas through connection to the existing line along the eastern frontage and adjacent to Bear Valley Road. Verizon and Charter provide telecommunication services to the vicinity of the area; existing lines are located Bear Valley Road. Residential development of the Proposed Site has been included in the utility providers’ plans and therefore all utilities necessary to serve the project are of sufficient capacity and no expansion would be required.
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant adverse impac ts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No Impact. According to the UWMP, during a multiple dry-year period, VWD’s total water supply is projected to be 32,699 acre-feet (AF) by 2045, while the total water demand is projected to be 32,699 AF in the same year, resulting in neither surplus or deficit. 21 According to DCR Engineering
Inc, the Proposed Project consists of commercial, r etail, office, self-storage, and multi-family residential development on approximately 34.74 acres, which 18.67 acres use would be residential and 16.07 acres use would be commercial and therefo re anticipated to result in a total water demand of 151 AF per year on average. As such, the Proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede substantial groundwater manageme nt of the basin. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
21 Victorville Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-1: Supply and Demand Comparison. Page 7-3 Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 59
c) No Impact. Refer to a) above. No significant adverse impacts to wastewater service capacity are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d,e) Less Than Significant Impact . According to the General Plan, the City of Victor ville disposes sanitary waste at the Victorville Sanitary Landfill, which is operated by the Solid Waste Management Division of the San Bernardino County Public Works Department in accordance with a Waste Disposal Agreement between the City and the County. The Victorville Sanitary Landfill currently operates on 67 acres of a total 491-acre property with a permitted capacity to accept 3,000 tons per day of refuse.
According to the CalRecycle’s estimated solid wast e generation rate, the commercial development portion of the project would generate approximately 0.5 tons of solid waste per day or approximately 1,080.5 pounds per day based on 13 pounds per 1,000 square-feet per day. The residential portion of the Proposed Project is anticipated to generated approximately 1.6 tons per day or 3,234 pounds per day based on 8.6 pounds per dwelling unit per day. In total, the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 2.1 tons per day.
22 The total anticipated solid waste would account for approximately 0.06 percent of the permitted 3,000 tons per day of refuse that can be accepted at the Victorville Sanitary Landfill.
The purpose of California Assembly Bill 341 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste from landfills by recycling. It mandates businesses and public entities generating 4-cubic yards or more of trash to establ ish and maintain recycling services. All new construction projects are required to submit a Cons truction and Demolition Solid Waste Management Plan to the City.
As part of the plan, projects are required to esti mate the amount of tonnage to be disposed and diverted during construction. Additionally, projects must provide the amount of waste that will be diverted and disposed of. Disposal/diversion receipts or certifications are required as a part of that summary. Additionally, the Proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including the Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. The Act requires that adequate areas be pr ovided for collecting and loading recyclable materials such as paper products, glass, and other recyclables. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project will have a less than significant impact from solid waste resources.
22 CalRcycle, Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/ rates Accessed January 3, 2022.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 60
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or other uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X
a) No Impact. According to the City General Plan Figure S-5, Bear Valley Road is designated as an evacuation route throughout the City 23 . During construction and long-term operation, the contractor would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City of Victorville fire and police. The Proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan identifies natural hazards, which include seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction, along with slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence, flooding, and wildland fires. The Project Site is surrounded by urban development. The site terrain is sloping primarily from the Southwest and Southeast corners with a maximum diff erence in elevation of approximately twenty-five (25) feet. Therefore, the Proposed Proj ect is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing project occupants to pollut ant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Site access is planned via two full-access drivewa ys and one emergency access on 3rd Avenue, three right-in right-out driveways on Bear Valley Road, two full- access driveways, one right-in right-out driveway, and one emergency access on 2nd Avenue will serve as the full access points for ingress and egress to the Proposed Project. The Proposed off- site improvements include installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the Project Site eastern western and southern frontages. As stated in Section XIX(a), the Proposed Project will connect to existing utilities and service system infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to require the installation or maintena nce of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporar y ongoing impacts to the environment. No
23 City of Victorville General Plan 2030, 2008. Page S-19
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 61
significant adverse impacts are identified or are a nticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site terrain is sloping primarily from the Sou thwest and Southeast corners with a maximum difference in elevation of approximately twenty-five (25) feet.
As shown on Figure S-2: Flood Hazards Map of the of the General Plan, the Proposed Project is within Zone X. Areas within Zone X are subject to flooding in the event of a 500-year flood, areas subject to a 100-year flood with average floodwater depths anticipated to be less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from the 100- year flood. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not antic ipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as no flood hazards traverse the project area, nor is the Project Site subject to inundation by downstream flooding or landslides.
The Proposed Project consist of four drainage areas. Drainage Area A will pick up runoff from the proposed major and shops buildings, parking lots, gas station, three drive-thru fast-food restaurant, and landscaping planters. Drainage Area B will pick up runoff from the drive-thru fast-food restaurants, retail/office/medical buildings, a med iation garden, parking lots and landscaping planters. Drainage Area C will pick up runoff from the 3- story storage building and single-story buildings, parking lot and landscaping planters. Drainage Area D will pick up runoff from the high- density residential area (apartments) access drives , parking stalls and landscaped areas. Each drainage area will discharge to a dual-function underground infiltration and detention basin for both stormwater treatment and hydromodification mitigation. Each basin will outlet to the existing 8’x4’ concrete box culvert that passes through the site a nd crosses 2nd Avenue. The Preliminary Hydrology Report calculates a total 130.63 cubic fe et second runoff for a 100-year storm and
72.15 cubic feet per second for a 10-year storm. Therefore, the total DCV for the proposed drainage areas of approximately 96,224cubic feet would be sufficient to capture potential runoff.
Therefore, the Proposed Project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 62
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substanti ally degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individua lly limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Explanations:
a) Less Than Significant Impact . A Habitat Assessment dated November 19, 2021 was completed by ELMT Consulting. A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project Site. However, to ensure potential impacts to this species are reduced to a less than significant level, Proposed Project shall adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
BCR Consulting LLC. (BCR Consulting) prepared a Cul tural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project dated November 20, 2019. An archaeological field survey of the Project Site was conducted on September 27, 2019. During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists did not identify any cultural resources within the Project Site boundaries. Excavations and grading for previous (abandoned) construction project have disturbed the entire project. Based on negative findings during the field survey combined with the high level of disturbance, development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in si gnificant impacts to archaeological or historical resources, and no further investigations or monitoring are recommended. There is no evidence that human remains will be identified within the project area, but the presence cannot be completely ruled out. Although BRC Consulting did not indicate the Project Site as sensitive for cultural resources, significant impacts could occur during site earthmoving activities, and as well as input from the SMBMI, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 are recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and CR-1 to CR-2, as provided in this Initial Study, would ensure impacts to biological and cultural resources are less than significant. Therefore, no Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 63
significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Less Than Significant Impact . Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectivel y significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states:
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
As shown herein, both summer and winter season oper ational air quality emissions are below MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in an existing or projected air quality violation. However, to ensure potential impacts related to construction emissions are reduced to a less than significant level, mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-7 shall be implemented.
Additionally, development of the Proposed Project w ill be conditioned to comply with current SCAQMD rules and regulations to minimize impacts to air quality.
The modeled greenhouse gas emissions anticipated fr om the Proposed Project during both construction and operational phases, were compared to the MDAQMD threshold and shown herein in Table 9 and Table 10. Compliance with the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as required by mitiga tion measures GHG-1 & GHG-2 ensures that development of new residential and commercial buildings include high energy-efficiency standards such as use of renewable energy source an d management of facilities to reduce emissions due to the use of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, cumulative impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered individually or cumulatively adverse or considerable. Impacts identified in this Initial Study can be reduced to a level of less than significant impact. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The incorporation of design measures, City of Victorville policies, standards, and guidelines and proposed mitigation m easures would ensure that the Proposed Project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly on an individual or cumulative basis. Therefore, no si gnificant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study
Victor Valley Connection
March 18, 2022 64
REFERENCES
BCR Consulting. Cultural Resource Assessment. November 2019 California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center Significant, Earthquakes and Faults. Accessed October 2021. https://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/index.html# California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwa rehouse/index.html?map=mlc California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of The Victorville 7.5’ Quadrangle. Access October 2019. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/Victorville_prelim.pdf California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor; accessed, December 2021.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Victorville Landfill (36-AA-0045). Accessed November 2021.
California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center. Accessed October 9, 2019.
City of Victorville, 2030 General Plan. 2008.
City of Victorville, 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report City of Victorville, Municipal Code
City of Victorville: 2019 Sewer System Management Plan.
DCR Engineering, INC. Water Quality Management Plan. May 12, 2021 DCR Engineering. Preliminary Hydrology Report. May 17, 2021Department of Homeland Security:
FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By City. Accessed December 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=victorville%20#searchresultsanchor ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment. November 19, 2021
Merrell Engineering Company, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. February 2019.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. August 2021.
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2021.
TJW Engineering, Inc. Trip Generation Analysis. November 2021 Victorville Water District: Victorville Water District Urban Water Management Plan. 2020