Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would remove the proposed Low Density Residential Infill Overlay. As shown in Figure 5 -2, Reduced Density Alternative, development in the area of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay would still occur in accordance with the designated land use and would not result in an increase in density in the core area of the City. Future development under the Reduced Density Alternative would result in 22,356 fewer dwelling units in the core area of the City. The Reduc ed Density Alternative would also include preparation of proposed new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element, similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 3: Increased Conservation Alternative. The Increased Conservation Alternative would increase open space and greenways by removing portions of heavy and light industrial land uses in the northern areas of the City and designating those areas as open space (Figure 5 -3, Increased Conservation Alternative). The increase in open space would result in a reduction of 4,515,648 square feet of light and heavy industrial uses. The Increased Conservation Alternative would also include preparation of a proposed new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element, similar to the proposed project.
Executive Summary
Draft PEIR ES-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Detailed descriptions and an analysis of potential impacts of each alterna tive are presented in Chapter 5, Alternatives . Table 5-5, Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Proje ct, provides a comparison of the potentially significant impacts for the alternatives to the project. The environmentally superior alternative would be the Increased Conservation Alternative because it would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts compared to the proposed project.
Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the summary of an EIR to include areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and to address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. On October 8, 2021, the City posted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines. The 30 -day public review period for the NOP began on October 8, 2021 and ended on November 8, 2021. The NOP and notices of NOP availability were mailed to public agencies, organizations, and other interested individuals to solicit their comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis. The City also held a public sco ping meeting on October 20, 2021. The comment letters received are summarized in Table ES-4, Notice of Preparation Comment Letter Summary. The NOP and comment letters can be found in Appendix A.
Table ES-4. Notice of Preparation Comment Letter Summary Comment
Letter No. Commenter Subject of Comment
Location in PEIR Where
Comment
Is Addressed
1 California Native
American Heritage
Commission
Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic region of the City and describes Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation requirements.
Section 3.3, Cultural
Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
2 Mitchell M. Tsai Recommends the inclusion of community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements and additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks due to COVID-19 from the project’s
construction activities.
Section 3.1, Air Quality,
and Section 3.5, Noise
Notes: CEQA = California Environmental Protection Act; PEIR = Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
Draft PEIR ES-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
The City of Victorville General Plan Update (project) proposes to update the City of Victorville’s (Victorville’s or City’s) Land Use Element and Safety Element and create a new Environmental Justice Element as part of the Victorville General Plan, which was last updated in 2008. The Land Use Element would be updated to guide and accommodate future growth in the City in a manne r that achieves the community’s vision, enhance s the community’s quality of life, and provide s a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality. The Safety Element Update would emphasize hazard reduction, accident prevention, and responses for human-made hazards and it would follow the City’s update to its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan along with the inclusion of climate change adaptation and resiliency plans. The Environmental Justice Element, a new state requirement for disadvantaged co mmunities, would aim to reduce pollution exposure ; improve access to public facilities ; promote food access, safe and sanitary housing, physical activity, and civic engagement ; and prioritize improvements and programs to address the needs of disadvantaged communities in the City.
1.2 Victorville General Plan
1.2.1 Existing Land Uses
The Land Use Element functions as a guide to the pattern of development for the City within its incorporated boundaries and sphere of influence (SOI). While City boundaries display the City’s currently incorporated boundaries, the SOI projects the developmental potential, size, and intensity that could occur in the City. The City and SOI are divided into 10 planning areas: Golden Triangle, Baldy Mesa, West Bear Valley, East Bear Valley, Spring Valley Lake, Central City, West City, North Mojave, Southern California Logistics Airport, and the Northern Expansion Area. Of those 10 planning areas, the City’s primary categories of land uses consist of Housing, Business, Public Facilities and Institutional, Open Space, and Specific Plan.
Table 1-1, Existing General Plan Land Use Acreage Designations for City Boundaries and Sphere of Influence, provides a statistical summary of the City’s existing land uses within its bo undaries and SOI. Table 1-2, 2008 Land Use Designations, gives a general description of the existing land use designations and corresponding indications of maximum density or intensity of development.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1-1. Existing General Plan Land Use Acreage Designations for City Boundaries and Sphere of Influence
Land Use Designation City Boundary (Acres) Sphere of Influence (Acres) Very Low Density Residential 3,280 4,786
Low Density Residential 13,967 2,384
Medium Density Residential 525 0
High Density Residential 2,242 14
Mixed Density Residential 78 0
Mixed Use 47 562
Commercial 5,108 400
Office Professional 352 0
Light Industrial 1,235 198
Heavy Industrial 1,228 5
Open Space 2,211 1,202
Public Institutional 964 267
Specific Plan 15,556 5,423
Total 46,791 15,241
Source: City of Victorville 2008.
Table 1-2. Existing Land Use Designations
Land Use Designations Definition Development Standards
Residential1
Very Low Residential (VLR) This Very Low Residential land use category is characterized by single-
family detached homes on lots with a
minimum area of 0.5 acre, which allows
for a maximum density of two dwelling
units per acre.
2 du/ac; maximum height of a principal
building is 30 feet and 25 feet for an
accessory; maximum lot coverage is 40
percent.
Low Density Residential (LDR) This Low Density Residential land use category is characterized by single-
family detached residential
development.
5 du/ac; maximum height of a principal
building is 30 feet and 20 feet for an
accessory; maximum lot coverage is 40
percent.
Medium Density Residential (MEDR) Residential development in this category is typified by attached
townhome units or garden type multi-
family development.
8–12 du/ac; maximum height of a
principal building is 30 feet and 20 feet
for an accessory; maximum lot
coverage is 40 percent.
Mixed Density (MDR) This Mixed Density Residential land use category is intended to facilitate
single-family infill development in the
event that extraordinary developmental
constraints, such as a lack of required
sewer infrastructure, make the
continued development of the permitted
high-density uses impractical or
infeasible. Residential development in
the Mixed Density Residential land use
category ranges from single-family
detached units to multi-family attached
1–15 du/ac for infill; maximum height is
35 feet; maximum lot coverage is 40
percent.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1-2. Existing Land Use Designations
Land Use Designations Definition Development Standards
units, such as apartments. The Mixed
Density Residential (MDR) zone district
corresponds to this General Plan land
use designation.
Mixed Use2
Mixed-Use (MU) This Mixed-Use land use category is
intended to facilitate well-integrated
multi-family and commercial
developments adjacent to retail
development. Permitted mix of uses
multi-family residential up to a density
of 60 du/ac; retail, office, civic, open
space, and other similar uses as
defined through the PUD process.
Maximum density 60 du/ac; maximum
lot coverage is 50 percent; maximum
building height is 150 feet; residential
may occupy 50 percent of the site area;
requires PUD with open space
elements and pedestrian linkages.
Commercial
Commercial (COM) This Commercial district corresponds to a wide range of retail commercial,
service commercial, and office
commercial activities.
Maximum height 120 feet. Maximum lot
coverage is 40–60 percent.
Office Professional (OP) The Office Professional district is established to provide for the location of
offices for professional services and for
business activities that involve a
relatively low volume of direct
consumer contact and to regulate such
development. Limited retail and
assembly that supports
office/professional uses is permitted.
Maximum site coverage is 50 percent of
the area of the property. Maximum
building height is 150 feet.
Industrial
Light Industrial (LI) This Light Industrial land use category is characterized by industrial development
either in industrial and/or business parks
or in mixed use areas. The main feature
of industrial activities in this category is
that they do not require any significant
site or structure requirements that are so
specialized that would limit future use of
the structures and/or site by another
industrial activity. There are two zone
districts that implement the Light
Industrial land use designation including
the Industrial Park District (IPD) zone,
and Light Industrial (M-1) zone.
The maximum development density for
the Industrial Park District (IPD) zone is
governed by lot coverage requirements
which permit structures to cover up to
60 percent of the total site area. The
Light Industrial (M-1) zone district does
not have a maximum lot coverage. The
maximum building height within this
land use district is 50 feet.
Heavy Industrial (HI) This Heavy Industrial land use category refers to industrial and manufacturing
uses that are more specialized in nature
and require special consideration in
terms of use of the property and impacts
on adjacent properties.
The maximum building height within
this land use category is 50 feet. There
is no maximum lot coverage.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1-2. Existing Land Use Designations
Land Use Designations Definition Development Standards
Public, Institutional, Open Space
Public/Institutional (PI) This General Plan land use designation refers to those land uses and activities
that are predominately used for public
purposes or owned or operated by a
public entity. Activities within this category
include City and County buildings, public
and private schools, colleges, and public
utilities and City yards.
The maximum lot coverage for
development in this category is 40
percent. The maximum building height
within this land use category is 50 feet.
Open Space (OS) This Open Space land use designation
refers to land that is to remain
undeveloped due to severe
development constraints, lake or river
bodies and floodplains, and reserved
public open space in parks and golf
courses. The purpose of this district is
to provide for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general
welfare in those areas of the City that,
under present conditions, are subject to
periodic flooding and accompanying
hazards and to conserve natural
resources of benefit to the general
public interest.
In the Open Space district, areas
outside the floodplain are permitted one
single-family dwelling is allowed on a 5-
acre minimum lot and agricultural uses.
Specific Plan
Specific Plan The land use policy provides for a
number of Specific Plans in the City.
The Specific Plans identify the location,
extent, and density of new development
and also indicate specific development
standards that are applicable.
All land use regulations and
development standards shall be those
as set forth in the adopted Specific
Plan.
Source: City of Victorville 2008.
Notes: du/ac = dwelling unit per acre; PUD = Planned Unit Development 1 No institutional or commercial uses permitted in any residentially designated districts, including Very Low Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Residential, High Density Residential, and Mixed Use Residential. 2 No institutional uses permitted in the Mixed Use District.
1.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The City is within the southwestern portion of Sa n Bernardino County (County) with the City of Adelanto to the northwest, City of Hesperia to the south, Town of Apple Valley to the east, and Oro Grande community to the north. The County is the largest county in the contiguous United States with 20,105 sq uare miles stretching into 24 incorporated cities. The northern and eastern borders of the County touch the borders of Nevada and Arizona.
The County categorized its planning areas into three different subgroups: the Valley Region, the Mountain Region, and the Desert Region. The Valley Region is at the southwestern corner of the County’s boundaries closest to other metropolitan areas such as the County of Los Angeles and Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
the County of Orange. Cities and major unincorporated areas in the Valley Region includ e Bloomington, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Mentone, Muscoy, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa. The Mountain Region is mostly composed of undeveloped canyons and mo untain preserves such as the San Bernadino National Forest that encompasses approximately 823,816 acres, 677,982 acres of which are federal land. Big Bear City, Big Bear Lake, Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Running Spring, and Wrightwood are all unincorporated areas in the Mountain Region. The Desert Region comprises 93 percent of the County’s land area, including the Mojave National Preserve , which is approximately 1.6 million acres of desert land. Cities and major unincorporated areas in the Desert Region inc lude Adelanto, Apple Valley, Barstow, Hesperia, Joshua Tree, Lucerne Valley, Needles, Newberry Springs, Twentynine Palms, Victorville, Yermo, and Yucca Valley.
1.3 Purpose and Use of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) has been prepared to satisfy California Public Resources Code, Section 21061, and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168.
The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effec t upon the environment” (California Public Resources Code, Section 21067). The City has the principal responsibility for approval of the project. For this reason, Victorville is the CEQA lead agency for the project.
A PEIR is an EIR that may be prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to g overn the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways. The intent of this PEIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Se ction 2. 5, Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report and Discretionary Actions, in Chapter 2, Project Description.
This PEIR has been prepared in accordance with current CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, CEQA implementation guidelines for the City, and the City’s local guidelines for implementing CEQA (2019 version). This PEIR has the following uses and purposes:
To comply with CEQA
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
To provide public notice to interested or affected parties regarding the project To assess the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project at a program level
To assess the potential environmental impacts from feasible alternatives to the project To provide environmental documentation to be used in applicable environmental permitting processes
An EIR is an informational document, the purpose of which is to inform members of the public and agency decision makers of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, identify feasible ways to reduce the significant effects of the p roject, and describe a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project that would reduce one or more significant effects and still meet the project’s objectives. In instances where significant impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, the project may be carried out or approved if the approving agency finds that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental impacts.
1.4 Environmental Impact Report Review Process
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation
In accord ance with CEQA Guidelines , Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for public and public agency review from October 8, 2021, through November 8, 2021 (included as Appendix A). The purpose of the NOP is to provide notification that an EI R for the project is being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, the lead agency held a public scoping meeting on October 20, 2021. Public agencies and members of the public were invited to attend and provide input on the scope of this PEIR. Comments from the public and public agencies in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix A . Several specific environmental issues were raised in the comments on the NOP. A summary of these comments and the PEIR chapters or sections in which they are addressed are provided in Table 1 -3, Notice of Preparation Comment Letter Summary .
Only comments that pertain to the environmental scope of this PEIR are summarized.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1-3. Notice of Preparation Comment Letter Summary Comment
Letter No. Commenter Subject of Comment
Location in PEIR
Where Comment
Is Addressed
1 California Native
American Heritage
Commission
Recommends consultation with California Native
American tribes that are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic region of the City and
describes Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation
requirements.
Section 3.3, Cultural
Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
2 Mitchell M. Tsai Recommends the inclusion of community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce
requirements and additional CEQA mitigation measures
to mitigate public health risks due to COVID-19 from the project’s construction activities.
Section 3.1, Air Quality,
and Section 3.5, Noise
Notes: CEQA = California Environmental Protection Act; PEIR = Program Environmental Impact Report
1.4.2 Program Environmental Impact Report
This PEIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. During this period, the public and public agencies can submit comments on this PEIR’s accuracy and completeness to the lead agency. Release of this PEIR marks the beginning of the 45-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105. The 45-day public review period for this PEIR will be from September 2, 2022, through October 17, 2022. The public can review this PEIR at the following address during normal business hours ( Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m.) or on the City’s website at https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city- departments/development/planning/environmental-review-notices.
The City encourages all comments on this PEIR to be submitted in writing. Comments or questions regarding this PEIR should be addressed to the following:
Scott Webb, City Planner
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California 92392
(760) 955-5135
[email protected]
Upon completion of the Draft PEIR public review period, a Final PEIR that will include written comments on the Draft PEIR received during the public review period and the City’s responses to those comments will be prepared. The Final PEIR will also include a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accord ance with CEQA (California Public Resource s Code, Section 21081.6). The Final PEIR will address any revisions to the Draft PEIR made in response to public, organization, or public agency comments. The Draft PEIR and Final PEIR together will compose the PEIR for the project. Before the City can review the project for approval, it must first certify that the PEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that it has reviewed and Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
considered the information in the PEIR, and that the PEIR reflects the indepe ndent judgment of the City. The City will also be required to adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (if any significant , unavoidable impacts are identified). If no significant , unavoidable impacts (assuming the City finds the proposed mitigation measures to be feasible) are identified, the City will not be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if it approves the project (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081).
1.5 Documents Incorporated by Reference
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, allows for incorporation by reference of “all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.” Incorporation by reference is used principally as a means of reducing the size of EIRs. This PEIR relies in part on data, environmental evaluations, mitigation measures, and other components of EIRs and plans prepared by the City for areas in the project vicinity. These documents are listed here and used as source documents for this PEIR. These documents are available for public review during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at 14343 Civic Drive Victorville, CA 92392, and on the City’s website a t https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city-departments/development/planninq/ environmental-reviewnotices:
Southern California Association of Governments 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
1.6 Scope of the Environmental Impact Report
Based on a review of the project and comments received during the NOP public review period and preparation of an Initial Study (Appendix A), the City determined that a PEIR that addresses the following environmental issue areas should be prepared:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise
Transportation
The specific topics evaluated are detailed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this PEIR.
This PEIR evaluates direct impacts, reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts resulting from planning, construction, and operation of the project using the most current information available and in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, this PEIR recommends potentially feasible mitigation measures, where possible, and project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant, adverse environmental effects.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
1.7 Organization of the Program Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary. Summarizes the project, environment al impacts that would result from implementation of the project, proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce impacts, and the level of significance of impacts both before and after mitigation.
Chapter 1, Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview of this PEIR process and describes the intended use and scope of this PEIR and the review process.
Chapter 2, Project Description. Provides a detailed description of the project, including its location and setting ; background information and purpose ; objectives; and technical, economic, and environmental components, and the intended uses for this PEIR.
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis. Describes the existing physical conditions for each resource area; lists the applicable laws and regulations and thresholds of significance related to the specific resource; describes the impact assessment methods; identifies the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the project; and provides feasible mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce the identified impacts.
Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations. Provides information required by CEQA regarding impacts that would result from the project, including a summary of cumulative impacts; secondary impacts, including potential impacts resulting from growth inducement , and significant, irreversible changes to the environment.
Chapter 5, Alternatives. Describes and compares the proposed alternatives to the project.
Chapter 6, List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted. Lists the lead agency and consultants who provided technical assistance and the agencies consulted in the preparation and review of this PEIR.
Chapter 7, References. Provides a list of references used in preparation of the analysis presented in this PEIR.
Appendices. Includes various documents and data that support the analysis presented in this PEIR.
1.7.1 Certification of the Final PEIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15132, Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report, the Final PEIR will consist of the following:
The Draft PEIR or revision of the Draft PEIR
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIR either verbatim or in summary A list of people, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR The lead agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process
Any other information added by the lead agency.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Draft PEIR 1-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15088, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, after the Final PEIR is completed, and at least 10 days prior to the certification hearing, a copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft PEIR will be provided to the commenting agencies.
1.7.2 Project Consideration
After Final PEIR certification, the City Council may consider approval of the project. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by specific, written findings, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines , Section 15091, and if required, a specific written statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 2 Project Description
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project) for the public, reviewing agencies, and decision makers.
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The City of Victorville (Victorville or City) is in the southwestern portion of the County of San Bernardino in the geographic sub -region of the southwestern Mojave Desert (known as Victor Valley or the High Desert) , within the Inland Empire area , as shown on Figure 2-1, Regional Location. The City is considered the largest metropolitan area in the Mojave Desert. Victorville is approximately 90 miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles and 35 miles northeast of the City of San Bernardino, and north of the San Bernardino Mountains at the edge of the Mojave Desert. The Mojave River runs through the City toward the Mojave Desert . Areas surrounding the City’s Planning Area are largely undeveloped and contained within the unincorporated County of San Bernardino boundaries.
The City is within Victor Valley, often referred to as the “High Desert” due to its approximate elevation of 2,900 feet above sea level. The Victor Valley is separated from other urbanized areas in Southern California by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains. The City and its sphere of influence are accessible via Interstate 15, U.S. Route 395, State Route 18, and historic U.S.
Route 66 (Figure 2-2, Project Location).
The City shares boundaries with the City of Adelanto to the northwest, the Town of Apple Valley and the unincorporated community of Spring Valley lake to the east, the City of Hesperia to the south, and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the southwest and to the north. There are also portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County nested within the City of Victorville. The community of Mountain View Acres is an unincorporated area within City boundaries. During the 60 years that Victorville has been a City, it has grown from an area of 9.7 square miles to an area of 74.16 square miles.
2.2 Project Background and Purpose
The City has experienced population growth over the last several decades and is anticipated to continue to experience population growth over the next several decades. Th e City’s growth projections indicate that Victorville will grow in population from approximately 136,561 residents in 2022 to approximately 339,613 residents by 2040. The City of Victorville General Plan Update is the City’s long-term planning document that provides guidance for development in the City and its sphere of influence over the next 20 years. The Victorville General Plan was last updated in 2008, and the Victorville Housing Element was last updated in 2021.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
2.2.1 Land Use Element
The City is updating the Land Use Element and Safety Element of the Victorville General Plan and creating a new Environmental Justice Element. The update to the Land Use Element has been completed in accordance with the City’s vision as expressed through the Victorville General Plan 2030, which presents the broad goals and strategies necessary to achieve the community’s vision (City of Victorville 2008). The Victorville General Plan 2030 is a blueprint for community leaders, City staff, and the community th at plans and addresses the broad range of issues associated with the City’s development.
2.2.2 Safety Element
A Safety Element is a required component to a General Plan and serves to identify the City’s future vision and implementation plan for safety considerations and decision-making process in planning for the next 2 to 3 decades. It includes future development policies that would minimize the risk of personal injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental damage associated with natural and human-made hazards. The City is currently updating the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which would be incorporated into the Safety Element as an appendix to comply with state laws.
2.2.3 Environmental Justice Element
In 2016, the State of California passed Senate Bill 1000, the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, requiring cities and counties to address environmental justi ce in their General Plans.
Environmental Justice is defined by the State of California as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The Environmental Justice Element was prepared to meet the requirements of Senate Bill 1000 by developing new goals and policies that:
Reduce the unique or compounded health risks in the community Promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process Prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
2.3 Project Objectives
In accordance with Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quali ty Act ( CEQA) Guidelines, the City identified the following objectives for the project:
1. Guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community’s vision, enhances our community’s quality of life, and provides a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality
2. Create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs
3. Create an aesthetically pleasing community by promo ting a distinctive identity for Victorville
4. Meet new statutory requirements identified in the Housing Element Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels
5. Create strategies to separate s ources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality
6. Promote access to public facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville
7. Protect Victorville against natural and human-made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention
2.4 Project Components
The project proposes updates to the Land Use and Safety Elements and the creation of a new Environmental Justice Element as a stand-alone chapter in the Victorville General Plan 2030. Each project component is described below.
2.4.1 Land Use Element Update
The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides long-term goals and policies that guide the City’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs. The update would promote land use and development practices that are consistent with Smart Growth principles to conserve natural resources, reduce p ollution, and greenhouse gas emissions . The proposed update would encourage economic development strategies by providing an appropriate mix of land uses to allow growth and employment to support the City as a major regional center for business and commerce in the Victor Valley. It would encourage development within proximity to City center and commercial corridors, near underutilized commercial centers and aim to minimize the expansion of infrastructure. The updated land use plan would include a significant increase in open space with the addition of the Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC). The proposed update would provide a clear guide for future growth identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 2021, which the City prepared in a separate, independent process from this General Plan Update. The Land Use Element Update Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
would ensure equitable policies and opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels in the City. It would expand the types of housing in Vi ctorville to accommodate people of all ages, socioeconomic status, family size, and ability.
2.4.1.1 Proposed Land Use Designations
As shown on Figure 2-3, Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations , the proposed Land Use Element Update would include changes to the existing land use designations, which establish the general pattern of land uses in the Planning Area and would identify maximum permitted land use densities and intensities. The Land Use El ement Update would establish 16 land use designations (14 primary land use designations and two overlay designations) that govern land uses in the Planning Area as shown in Table 2-1, Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations. These de signations apply density and intensity requirements, use characteristics, and land use policies to individual parcels.
Table 2-1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Residential
Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Generally characterized by single- family detached homes on lots with a
minimum area of one-half acre, which
allows for a maximum of two dwelling
units per acre.
Density: 0–2 du/ac
Low Density Residential (LDR) Generally characterized by single- family detached residential
development.
Density: 0–5 du/ac
Low-Medium Density Residential
(LMDR)
Generally typified by multi-family
attached units; duplex, triplex, and
fourplex structures; patio homes,
cottage/bungalow court housing, and
attached townhomes.
Density: 5.1–12 du/ac
Medium Density Residential (MDR)2 Generally characterized by multi-family dwellings that coordinate with
neighboring lower density development
and includes cottage/bungalow court
housing, attached townhomes, and
garden apartments.
Density: 12.1–20 du/ac
High Density Residential (HDR) Generally typified by multi-family dwellings including garden apartments
and low- to mid-rise multi-family
buildings.
Density: 20.1–30 du/ac
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Mixed Density Residential (MXDR) Intended to facilitate single-family infill development in the event that
extraordinary developmental
constraints, such as a lack of required
sewer infrastructure, make the
continued development of the permitted
high-density uses impractical or
infeasible. Residential development in
the Mixed Density Residential land use
category ranges from single-family
detached units to multi-family attached
units, such as apartments. The MXDR
zone district corresponds to this
General Plan land use designation.
Density: 1–15 du/ac for infill
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)2 Provides for a mix of neighborhood- and community-serving commercial,
service, and other complementary and
supportive uses with a variety of lower
to medium density housing to
encourage infill development and/or
revitalization of existing areas. “Big box”
retailers prohibited. Mix of uses can be
vertical or horizontal. MU-1 allows
mixed-use, stand-alone commercial,
and stand-alone residential.
Density: 0–15 du/ac
Non-Residential FAR: 0.5
Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)2 Provides for a mix of neighborhood- and community-serving commercial,
service, and other complementary and
supportive uses with a variety of
medium- to high-density housing to
encourage infill development and/or
revitalization of existing areas. Provides
flexibility to support changing land use
trends. “Big box” retailers prohibited.
Accommodates lower income Regional
Housing Needs Allocation default
density. Mix of uses can be vertical or
horizontal. MU-2 allows mixed-use,
stand-alone commercial, and stand-
alone residential.
Density: 15.1–30 du/ac
Non-Residential FAR: 1.0
Commercial
General Commercial (GC) Provides for a wide range of retail commercial, service commercial, and
office commercial activities, as well as
large-scale planned shopping districts
serving the local and regional area and
population, “big box” retailers,
motels/hotels, and public assembly uses.
FAR: 2.0 (Note: certain uses, such as
hotels and convention centers, may be
increased on a case-by-case basis.)
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Industrial
Light Industrial (LI) This category of land use is
characterized by industrial development
either in industrial and/or business
parks or in mixed industrial/business
park use areas. The main feature of
industrial activities in this category is
that they do not require any significant
site or structure requirements that are
so specialized that would limit future
use of the structures and/or site by
another industrial activity.
FAR: 1.0
Heavy Industrial (HI) The Heavy Industrial land use category refers to industrial and manufacturing
uses that are more specialized in nature
and require special consideration in
terms of use of the property as well as
impacts on adjacent properties.
FAR: 1.0
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional (P-I) Refers to those land uses and activities that are predominately used for public
purposes or owned or operated by a
public entity. Activities within this category
include city and county buildings, public
and private schools, colleges, and public
utilities and city yards.
FAR: Development intensity determined
on a case-by-case basis
Open Space (OS) Refers to land that is to remain
undeveloped due to severe
development constraints, lake or river
bodies and floodplains, and reserved
public open space in parks, golf
courses, or other lands with an open
space character that protect public
safety and/or conserve public
resources. The purpose of this district is
to provide for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general
welfare in those areas of the City which,
under present conditions, are subject to
periodic flooding and accompanying
hazards or are intended to conserve
natural resources of benefit to the
general public interest.
FAR: NA
Minimum Density: 1 du/5 ac on property
outside the floodplain
Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC)2 Provides for the use of areas located within overhead utility line easements,
that are otherwise undevelopable, as
open spaces corridors and pedestrian
connections to conserve natural
resources and enhance connectivity for
benefit to the general public interest.
FAR: NA
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay
(LDRIO)2
Applies to LDR properties in the area
included within the overlay. Allows increase
in density in core area of the City to:
Encourage infill and promote
efficient use of existing
infrastructure.
Provide additional housing
opportunities.
0–9 du/ac3
Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO)2
Promotes health and wellness for all
segments of the community, (local &
regional-serving), including those who are
ill, those who are aging, and health-
conscious individuals of all ages.
Applies to existing and proposed
hospitals/medical facilities in
designated areas
Allows public and private hospitals,
medical centers and supportive offices,
emerging medical facilities, healthcare
clinics, community centers, extended care
and nursing facilities, pharmacies, 24/7
centers (e.g., imaging, dialysis, etc.),
senior housing, daycare (adult, child,
specialized), Alzheimer’s care and living,
restaurants and juice bars, grocery stores,
other support retail, gyms and fitness
studios, recreation/trails, etc.
Allows a range of housing integrated into
the development.
Functions as a sustainability hub,
promoting active transportation, green
infrastructure, open space, electric vehicle
charging stations, edible landscaping,
composting, etc.
Requires an integrated development via a
planned unit development to use overlay.
Density: 20–30 du/ac
FAR: 2.0
(Note: Density and FAR may be
modified based on approval of an
implementing planned unit
development.)
Specific Plan
Specific Plan The Land Use Element provides for a
number of specific plans within the City.
The specific plans identify the location,
extent, and density of new development
and also indicate specific development
standards that are applicable.
All land uses, densities, other
regulations, and development
standards shall be those as set forth in
the adopted specific plan.
Notes: du = dwelling unit; FAR = floor area ratio
1 Denotes new land use designation.
2 Density, expressed as dwelling units per acre (du/ac), refers to the allowable residential density range for a stand-alone residential or the residential portion of a mixed-use project, not including any density bonus as allowed per California Government Code Sections 65915–65918 and the Victorville Zoning Code. Intensity, expressed as floor area ratio (FAR), refers to the Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
maximum non-residential square footage allowed on a site including Mixed Use designations, unless otherwise approved by the applicable City reviewing authority.
3 Maximum allowable density may be reduced to 7 du/ac unless certain design/amenity benchmarks are met, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
A new High Density Residential land use designation was added to accommodate default density for affordable housing to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Land Use Element removes the existing Mixed Use-High Density land use designation and added two new Mixed - Use designations. The added designations would provide housing in proximity to resident serving uses and close to transit, provide greater flexibili ty in types of uses to be responsive to market change, encourage revitalization in underutilized areas of Victorville and would coordinate with the Housing Element to provide designations to accommodate Regional Housing Needs Allocation. In addition, the L and Use Element deletes the Office Professional designation and redesignates those properties to other designations. The Land Use Element also adds new land use categories such as the Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC) and Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO). T he new GUC is along the City’s key public utility corridors to promote creation of continuous trails and multiple public access points. The new HWO is intended to promote health and wellness for all segments of the community. The HWO applies to existing and proposed hospitals/medical facilities , a llows a full range of medical uses and specialized care facilities , allows complementary uses such as restaurants, grocery stores, support retail, gyms/fitness studios, recreation/trails, allows a range of housin g integrated into the development , and f unctions as a sustainability hub, promoting active transportation, green infrastructure, open space, and electric vehicle charging stations.
As shown in Table 2 -2, Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distributio n, the largest land use in the Planning Area would be residential, and the next largest would be commercial.
Table 2-2. Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distribution Land Use Designations City of Victorville (acres) Sphere of Influence (acres) Residential
Very Low Density Residential 3,096.40 4,604.43
Low Density Residential 13,976.14 2,518.49
Low-Medium Density Residential 487.28 0
Medium Density Residential 1,902.74 12.49
Mixed Density Residential 106.07 0
High Density Residential 59.49 0
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 1 372.37 401.77
Mixed Use 2 1,063.43 160.04
Commercial
General Commercial 4,116.31 428.12
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-2. Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distribution Land Use Designations City of Victorville (acres) Sphere of Influence (acres) Industrial
Light Industrial 2,694.16 78.70
Heavy Industrial 1,144.56 0
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional 810.70 773.68
Open Space 2,789.13 10,076.16
Greenway/Utility Corridor 1,075.07 0
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 13,181.14 630.43
Total Acreage 46,874.92 19,684.31
Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay 15,439.85 0
Health and Wellness Overlay 289.20 0
2.4.1.2 Proposed Buildout
Buildout of land in the City and sphere of influence would result in approximately 73,808 dwelling units to house approximately 339,613 residents and would support 42,393,038 non-residential square feet. These parameters can be used to identify the anticipated levels of development allotted by the project throughout the Planning Area . Table 2 -3, Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity, details the proposed densities of residential and intensity of non-residential development that would occur with implementation of the land use policies in the General Plan Update.
Table 2-3. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity Land Use
Designations
City of Victorville
(du)
Sphere of Influence
(du)
City of Victorville
(square feet)
Sphere of Influence
(square feet)
Residential1
Very Low Density
Residential
3,715 4,420 NA NA
Low Density
Residential2
8,387 4,534 NA NA
Low Density
Residential in Low
Density Residential
Infill Overlay
22,356 NA NA NA
Low-Medium Density
Residential
2,338 NA NA NA
Medium Density
Residential
10,657 52 NA NA
Mixed Density
Residential
700 NA NA NA
High Density
Residential
1,274 NA NA NA
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-3. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity Land Use
Designations
City of Victorville
(du)
Sphere of Influence
(du)
City of Victorville
(square feet)
Sphere of Influence
(square feet)
Mixed Use3
Mixed Use 1 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355
Mixed Use 2 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632
Commercial
General Commercial NA NA 18,825,761 1,398,276
Industrial
Light Industrial NA NA 8,804,565 567,805
Heavy Industrial NA NA 6,733,287 NA
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional NA NA 529,907 252,866
Open Space NA 101 NA NA
Greenway/Utility
Corridor
NA NA NA NA
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 7,909 605 7,252,423 0
Total 63,395 10,413 36,183,124 6,209,914
Notes: du = dwelling unit
Buildout assumptions for 2045 are inferred from SCAG’s 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020)
1 Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element) 2 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element) Table 2-4, Comparison of Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update, compares the estimated level of residential and non -residential development and population for the City under the existing 2008 General Plan and Existing 202 2 Baseline conditions compared to the General Plan Update.
Table 2-4. Comparison of Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Location Number of Dwelling Units Total Population1
Non-Residential
Square Feet
Existing General Plan (2008 Buildout)
City of Victorville 84,746 266,102 17,730,215
Sphere of Influence 23,411 73,511 33,628,525
Existing Conditions (2022 Baseline)
City of Victorville 36,195 130,771 27,991,000
Sphere of Influence 5,137 6,922 596,000
Proposed General Plan Update2
City of Victorville 63,395 199,060 36,183,124
Sphere of Influence 10,413 32,801 6,209,914
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 2-4. Comparison of Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Location Number of Dwelling Units Total Population1
Non-Residential
Square Feet
Net Change (2022 Baseline – Proposed General Plan Update) City of Victorville 27,200 68,289 8,192,124
Sphere of Influence 5,276 15,879 5,613,914
Notes:
1 Population estimates are inferred from SCAG's 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020). 2 The number of dwelling units is based on average density at buildout, not maximum density. 3 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density; Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element);Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
2.4.2 Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update would identify and, when possible, reduce the impact of natural and human-made hazards that may threaten the health, safety, and property of the residents living and working in the Planning Area. The Safety Element Update would emphasize hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions in susceptible areas, and promote accident prevention. The Safety Element Update would integrate public health and safety into development and planning policies to emphasize responses and to maintain optimal emergency preparedness, in accordance with recently adopted state laws.
2.4.3 Environmental Justice Element
The Environmental Justice Element would be prepared as a new chapter in the Victorville General Plan. Preparation of an Environmental Justice Element is req uired under Senate Bill 1000 for jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities . It will reflect the City’s commitment to reducing environmental burdens and ensuring all residents have the opportunity to access public goods and services that improve their qu ality of life. The Environmental Justice Element would focus on objectives and policies that aim to reduce pollution exposure; improve access to public facilities and services; improve access to healthy foods; promote access to physical activity and recreation; improve access to safe, sanitary and affordable housing ; reduce exposure to climate hazards; and improve civic engagement in the public decision-making process.
2.5 Intended Uses of the Environmental Impact Report and Discretionary Actions
This Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is intended to provide information to public agencies, the public, and decision makers regarding potential environmental impacts related to implementation of the General Plan Update. The purpose of an EIR, under the provisions of CEQA, is “to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (California Public Resources Code, Section 21002.1[a]).
According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a PEIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and can be considered logical parts in the chain of c ontemplated actions in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, or plans. A PEIR allows for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on separate individual action, and ensures consideration of cumulative impacts that might be missed on a case-by-case basis.
The project would require approval of several discretionary action s by the City and other responsible agencies, which are listed in Table 2-5, Discretionary Actions.
Table 2-5. Discretionary Actions
Discretionary Action Approving Agency
Certification of Final PEIR City of Victorville
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Victorville Adoption of Findings of Fact City of Victorville
Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Victorville Adoption of Land Use Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Environmental Justice Element
City of Victorville
Notes: PEIR = Program Environmental Impact Report
Date: 6/30/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 2\F igure2_1_Regional.mxd Los Angeles County
Kern County
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County
Unincorporated San
Bernardino County
Unincorporated San
Bernardino County
California
City
Barstow
Adelanto
Victorville
Apple Valley
Hesperia
Lake
Arrowhead
Big
Bear Lake
Crestline
Running
Springs
Lake Los
Angeles
£¤395
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ247
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ189
ÄÆ206
ÄÆ38
ÄÆ330
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ173
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ247
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ58
ÄÆ138
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦40
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
Incorporated Areas
Regional Location
Source: ESRI 2020.
Figure 2-1
±
0 105
Miles
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 7/1/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 2\Figure2_2_ProjectLocation.mxd Southern California
Logistics Airport
Unincorporated San
Bernardino County
Unincorporated San
Bernardino County
Adelanto
Victorville Apple Valley
Mountain
View Acres
Hesperia
M
ojave R
iver
Deep C reek
UV138
UV173
UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
£¤66
Victorville General Plan Update
Route66
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
Adelanto
Apple Valley
Hesperia
Mountain View Acres
Southern California Logistics
Airport
Project Location
Source: ESRI 2020.
Figure 2-2
±
0 21
Miles
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 8/18/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 2\F igure2_3_ProposedLandUse.mxd UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
£¤66
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
GPLU Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay (up to 9 du/ac)
Health & Wellness Overlay (up to 30 du/ac)
GPLU
Very Low Density Residential (up to 2 ud/ac)
Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (6-12 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (12.1-20 du/ac)
High Density Residential (20.1-30 du/ac)
Mixed Density Residential (1-15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 1 (up to 15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 2 (15.1-30 du/ac)
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Open Space
Greenway/Utility Corridor
Greenway/Utility Corridor PC
Public/Institutional
Specific Plan
Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Source: Draw Tap GIS 2022. ESRI 2022.
Figure 2-3
±
0 21
Miles
Chapter 2: Project Description
Draft PEIR 2-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Sections 3.1 through 3.6 in this chapter contain a discussion of the potential environmental effects from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project), including the current environmental setting, regulatory setting, method of analysis, thresholds of significance, impacts (including cumulative), and mitigation measures.
Scope of the Environmental Impacts Analysis
In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential environmental effects from the project are analyzed for the following environmental issue areas:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise
Transportation
Format of the Environmental Impact Analysis
The following subsections compose each of the six environmental issue area sections in Sections
3.1 through 3.6 of this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
Existing Conditions
This subsection describes the current environmental setting of each environmental issue area .
According to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the project vicinity to provide the “baseline conditions” against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline conditions are the physical conditions that exist when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the project was published on October 21, 2021, and the baseline conditions contained in this PEIR are generally taken from this time period. However, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law recognize that the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot always be rigid.
Physical environmental conditions may vary over a range of time periods; thus , the use of environmental baselines that differ from the publication date of the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when conducting the environmental analyses. Some sections rely on a variety of data to establish an applicable baseline. For example, in Sections 3. 1, Air Quality; 3. 2, Biological Resources; 3. 3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ; and 3.6, Transportation, available data was months and sometimes several years old. Therefore, projections regarding how those conditions might have changed were incorporated into the PEIR sections and corresponding technical reports.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Regulatory Framework
This subsection provides a summary of regulations, plans, policies , and laws that are relevant to each environmental issue area at the federal, state, regional, and local levels.
Thresholds of Significance
This subsection identifies the criteria used to determine whether potential environmental effects are significant. The thresholds of significance used in this analysis were primarily based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. However, in some cases, thresholds were devel oped specifically for this analysis or were adopted from standards adapted from other agencies or entities. This subsection defines the type, amount, and/or extent of impact that would be considered a significant, adverse change in the environment. The thr esholds of significance are intended to assist the reader in understanding how and why this PEIR reaches a conclusion that an impact is significant, potentially significant, or less than significant.
Impacts and Mitigation
This subsection describes the pot ential environmental impacts of the project and, based on the thresholds of significance , concludes if the environmental impacts would be significant, potentially significant, or less than significant or if no impact would occur. Each impact criterion is a ddressed in its own subsection. This format is designed to assist the reader in quickly identifying t he subject of each impact analysi s and for use in Table ES -3, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which forms the basis of the Mitiga tion Monitoring and Reporting Program. For each impact criterion , applicable standards of significance are identified and potential impacts are discussed in the Impact Analysis subsection.
Mitigation measures are also included and discussed when applicable.
Impact Analysis. The analysis of environmental impacts considers both the construction and operational phases associated with implementation of the project. As required by Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, direct, indirect, short -term, on-site, and/or off -site impacts are addressed for each project -specific development phase, as appropriate, for the environmental issue area being analyzed. This PEIR uses the following terms to describe the level of significance of impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis:
Less than Significant: “Less than significant” refers to two conditions:
Impacts resulting from implementation of the project that are not likely to exceed the defined standards of significance.
Potentially sig nificant impacts resulting after implementation of mitigation measures. If implementation of the specified mitigation measures would reduce the potentially significant impact to a level that does not exceed the defined standards of significance, the impact is considered less than significant.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Potentially Significant: “Potentially significant” refers to i mpacts resulting from implementation of the project that may exceed defined standards of significance before mitigation is considered.
Significant and Unavoidable: “Significant and unavoidable” refers to impacts resulting from implementation of the project that cannot be eliminated or reduced to below the defined standards of significance or a less than significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
A “significant effect” is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, wa ter, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment . . . [but] may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”
Significance of Impact. This subsection identifies the level of significance of project impacts before mitigation measures are implemented.
Mitigation Measures. Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to “describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts.” The CEQA Guidelines define “feasibility” as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, social, technological, legal, or other considerations.
The Mitigation Measures subsection discusses mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of impacts identified in the Impact Analysis subsection.
Significance After Mitigation. This subsection identifies the level of significance of project impacts after mitigation measures are implemented.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts in addition to project impacts. In accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to th e project alone. Further, the discussion is guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. According to Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” are defined as follows:
Two or more individual effects which, when considered to gether, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines further states that a “cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”
In addition, Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR evaluates whether the impacts of the project would be significant when considered in combination with past, present, and future reasonably foreseeable projects, and whether the project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to those impacts. CEQA recognizes that the analysis of cumulative imp acts need not be as detailed as the analysis of project-related impacts but instead should “be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b]). The CEQA Guidelines indicate that, where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider the effect significant but shall briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. As further clarified by Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. The CEQA Guidelines allow for a project’s contribution to be rendered less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation.
The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis varies depending on the specific environmental issue area being analyzed. The geographic scope defines the geographic area within which projects may contribute to a specific cumulative impact. Therefore, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the defined geographic area for a given cumulative issue must be considered.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(b), presents the following two possible approaches for considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and indicates that either could be used:
1. A list of past, present, and probable future pro jects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency
2. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The cumulative impacts analyses in this PEIR uses the Summary of Projections Approach . The proposed project consists of the Victorville General Plan Update. Consistent with Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, this PEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of developments in accordance with buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. By its nature, a General Plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers cumulative development tha t could occur within a city’s planning area over a defined time frame. Therefore, the impact analysis of a General Plan project constitutes the cumulative analysis. In addition to cumulative development in the City of Victorville (City or Victorville) , the analysis of traffic and related impacts (such as noise) considers the effects of regional traffic growth occurring outside the planning area. Potential cumulative impacts that have the potential for impacts beyond the City boundary (e.g., traffic, air qua lity, noise) have been addressed through cumulative growth in the City and region. Regional growth outside the City has accounted for traffic, air quality, and noise impacts. This model uses regional growth projections to calculate future traffic volumes. The growth projections adopted by the City and surrounding area are used for the cumulative impact analyses, which are discussed in individual sections.
Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
Draft PEIR 3-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.1 Air Quality
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project). The analysis in this section is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model outputs (Appendix B) and the Transportation Impact Study (VMT Analysis) prepared by CR Associates (2022) (Appendix E).
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Air quality is defined by the concentration of pollutants in relation to their impact on human health.
Concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the rate and location of air pollutant emissions released by pollution sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions.
Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, and sunlight. Therefore, ambient air quality conditions within the local air basin are influenced by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of air pollutant emissions released by existing air pollutant sources.
The City of Victorville (Victorville or City) is in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes the desert portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, the eastern desert portion of Kern County, and the northeastern desert portion of Riverside County. The Basin is under the jurisdiction of Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).
3.1.1.1 Climate
Air quality in the Basin is a function of t he area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as human-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin.
Local meteorological conditions are greatly affected by the topography of the region. Wind direction is primarily from the west, west -southwest and southwest. A significant portion of the prevailing winds in the Victor Valley area is due to the phenomena known as the “orographic effect.” The air is forced over the mountain range and loses moisture as it rises. When it descends, it also compresses and heats up. The speed of the wind is aided by the “desert heat lows,” which routinely form over the eastern Mojave Desert area. Although a portion of Victor Valley's winds comes from the Los Angeles Basin via the canyons, the vast majority of the winds are a result of the orographic effect and the desert heat low-pressure systems.
Prevailing winds in the Basin are out of the west and southwest. These prevailing winds are due to the proximity of the Basin to coastal and central regions and the blocking nature of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the north; air masses pushed onshore in Southern California by differential heating are channeled through the Basin. The Basin is separated from the Southern California Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
coastal and central California Valley regions by mountains (highest elevation approximately 10,000 feet), whose passes form the main channels for these air masses.
During the summer a Pacific Subtropical High cell that sits off the coast generally influences the Basin, inhibiting cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. Most desert moisture arrives from infrequent warm, moist, and unstable air masses from the south. The Basin averages between 3 and 7 inches of precipitation per year (from 16 to 30 days with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation). The Basin is classified as a dry-hot desert climate, with portions classified as dry - very hot desert, to indicate at least 3 months have maximum average temperatures over 100.4°F.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Individual air pollutants at certain concentrations may adversely affect human or animal health, reduce visibility, damage property, and reduce the productivity or vigor of crops and natural vegetation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have identified six air pollutants of concern at nationwide and st atewide levels:
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO x), ozone (O 3), particulate matter ( particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter measuring no more than
2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead.
The criteria air pollutants pertinent to this analysis are CO, NOx, O3, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and SO2. The following describes the health effects for each of these criteria air pollutants.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a colorle ss, odorless, poisonous gas produced by combustion processes, primarily mobile sources. When CO gets into the body, it combines with chemicals in the blood and prevents blood from providing oxygen to cells, tissues, and organs. Because the body requires oxygen for energy, high-level exposure to CO can cause serious health effects, including death (USEPA 2016).
Nitrogen Oxides
NOx is a general term pertaining to compounds including nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and other oxides of nitrogen. NO x is produced from burning fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and coal. NOx reacts with reactive organic gases (ROGs) to form ground -level O3 (smog).
NOx is linked to a number of adverse respiratory systems effects (USEPA 2019a).
Ozone
Ground-level O 3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed by chemical reactions of “precursor” pollutants (NO x and ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Major emissions sources include NO x and ROG emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. O 3 can trigger a variety of health problems, Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
particularly for sensitive receptors, including children, older adults, and people of all ages who have lung diseases, such as asthma (USEPA 2021).
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes dust, metals, organic compounds, and other tiny particles of solid materials that are released into and move around the air. Particulates are produced by many sources, including the burning of diesel fuel by trucks and buse s, industrial processes, and fires.
Particulate pollution can cause nose and throat irritation and heart and lung problems. Particulate matter is measured in microns, which are 1 millionth of 1 meter in length (or 1 thousandth of 1 millimeter). PM10 is small (i.e., respirable) particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2021a).
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels, especially at power plants and industrial facilities. SO 2 is linked to a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system (USEPA 2019b).
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills. The two primary emissions of con cern regarding health effects for land development projects are CO and diesel particulate matter (DPM). The health effects of CO are described previously. DPM is a mixture of many exhaust particles and gases that is produced when an engine burns diesel fue l. Compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation and headaches and dizziness. Long-term exposure is linked to increased risk of cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, and respiratory disease and lung cancer (OSHA 2013).
3.1.2 Existing Air Quality
The MDAQMD has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the City and sphere of influence. The MDAQMD monitors air quality at six monitoring stations throughout the Basin.
The closest air quality monitoring station to the proposed project is the Victorville – Park Avenue station located at 14306 Park Avenue in the Planning Area. This station monitors O3, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. The most current 3 years of data monitored at this station are included in Table 3. 1-1, Ambient Air Quality Monitored at the Victorville – Park Avenue Monitoring Station.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.1-1. Ambient Air Quality Monitored at the Victorville – Park Avenue Monitoring Station
Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021
O3
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.104 0.112 0.112
Number of days exceeded State: > 0.10 ppm 3 4 8
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.081 0.094 0.098
Number of days exceeded State: > 0.07 ppm* 34 38 35
Federal: > 0.07 ppm* 29 35 34
PM10
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 170 261.4 591.6
Number of days exceeded State: > 50 µg/m3 ND ND ND
Federal: > 150 µg/m3 2 2 1
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) ND ND ND Exceeded for the year State: > 20 µg/m3 ND ND ND
PM2.5
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 17.8 48.4 87.1
Number of days exceeded Federal: > 35 µg/m3 0 4 1
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 7 9.7 10.2 Exceeded for the year State: > 12 µg/m3 No Yes Yes
Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No Yes Yes
NO2
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.056 0.059 0.056
Number of days exceeded State: > 0.18 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.011 0.012 0.012 Exceeded for the year State: > 0.030 ppm No No No
Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No
Source: CARB 2022.
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ND = no data; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; ppm = parts per million State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons: National 8 -hour averages are truncated to three decimal places; state 8-hour averages are rounded to three decimal places. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating 8 -hour averages are more stringent than the national criteria. Daily maximum 8 -hour averages associated with the National
0.070 ppm standard exclude those 8-hour averages that have first hours between midnight and 6:00 am, Pacific Standard Time. Daily maximum 8 -hour averages associated with the National 0.070 ppm standard include only those 8 -hour averages from days that have sufficient data for the day to be considered valid. As shown in Table 3.1-1, 1-hour O3 levels exceeded the state standards in 2019 through 2021 , while the 8 -hour O3 levels exceeded both federal and state standards. PM 10 Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
levels exceeded federal standards in all 3 years, while NO 2 levels did not exceed either standard.
PM2.5 levels exceeded the state and federal standard in 2020 and 2021.
Existing emissions for the Planning Area were estimated using CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) and data obtained from the Transportation Impact Study (Appendix E) prepared for the project. Table
3.1-2, Existing Planning Area Emissions, summarizes existing daily criteria pollutant emissions in the Planning Area.
Table 3.1-2. Existing Planning Area Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
NOx ROG CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 49,356 977 62,708 108 8,333 8,333
Energy 42 365 192 2 29 29
Mobile 2,589 2,691 18,276 37 32 1,036
Total existing emissions 51,987 4,033 81,176 147 8,394 9,398 Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gas; SOx = sulfur oxides
3.1.3 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address air quality.
3.1.3.1 Federal
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The CAA authorizes the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Current NAAQS are listed in Table 3.1-3, National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The primary standards listed below have been set at levels intended to protect public health. The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in “attainment,” in “non -attainment,” or “unclassified” for each criteria a ir pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a non-attainment or attainment designation. The USEPA classifies the Mojave Desert Air Basin as in attainment for the federal PM2.5, 1-hour O3, CO, NO2, lead, and SO2 standards. It is classified as in non-attainment for PM10, and 8-hour O3 with respect to federal air quality standards. Table 3.1-4, Mojave Desert Air Basin Attainment Status, lists the attainment status of the Mojave Desert Air Basin for criteria pollutants.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.1-3. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 Federal Standards2
Concentration3 Primary3, 4 Secondary3, 5
O36
1-Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) — Same as Primary
Standards 8-Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
PM107
24-Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary
Standards Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 μg/m3 —
PM2.57
24-Hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary
Standards
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
CO
8-Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
None 1-Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
NO2 8
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100
μg/m3) Same as Primary
Standard 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (470 mg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) SO29
Annual Arithmetic
Mean — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)
—
24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)
—
3-Hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Lead10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas) Same as Primary
Standard Rolling 3-Month
Average7 — 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility-Reducing
Particles12 8-Hour See Footnote 12. No Federal Standards Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 No Federal Standards
H2S 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride10 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No Federal Standards Source: CARB 2021b.
Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; CO = carbon monoxide; H2S = hydrogen sulfide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide 1 California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, lead, H2S, and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O 3, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in 1 year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the USEPA for further clarification and current national policies.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 5 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
6 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 7 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM 2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m 3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m 3.
The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean averaged over 3 years. 8 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
Table 3.1-4. Mojave Desert Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards
O3 (1-Hour) Non-Attainment No Federal Standard
O3 (8-Hour) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment
PM10 Non-Attainment Non-Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Attainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Unclassifiable/Attainment
Source: CARB 2022.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide The CAA requires states to develop a plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of the country and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated non -attainment for NAAQS. These plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), are developed by state and local air quality management agencies and submitted to the USEPA for approval. A SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. A SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them.
3.1.3.2 State
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective CARB has developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook) to provide guidance on land use compatibility with sources of TACs (CARB 2005). These sources include freeways and high -traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, refineries, dry cleaners, gas stations, and industrial facilities. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is not a law or adopted policy but offers advisory Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
recommendations for siting sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook indicates that land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation need s, economic development priorities, and other quality - of-life issues.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford -Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS . The C AAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations and provided in Table 3. 1-3. As shown in Table 3. 1-4, the Basin is in non -attainment with the CAAQS for O 3 and PM10. The Basin is designated as an attainment area for the state for PM 2.5, CO, NO, SO2, and lead standards.
Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations
California regulates TACs primarily through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Assembly Bill 1807) (Tanner Act) and the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill 2588) (Hot Spots Act). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before C ARB designates a substance as a TAC. The Hot Spots Act requires existing facilities that emit toxic substances above specified levels to (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory, (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant (i.e., 10 tons per year or on the air district’s Hot Spots Risk Assessment List), (3) notify the public of significant risk levels, and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.
3.1.3.3 Regional
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
The MDAQMD is responsible for ado pting rules, setting policies , and providing direction on important air quality issues that affect the Mojave Desert and its following jurisdictional boundaries.
The following MDAQMD rules potentially apply to development under the proposed project:
Regulation IV (Prohibitions)
Regulation IX (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources) Regulation XI (Source Specific Standards)
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Regulation XIII (New Source Review)
Regulation XV (Emissions Standards for Specific Toxic Air Contaminants) On April 15, 2004, the USEPA designated the Western Mojave Desert non-attainment area as non- attainment for the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS pursuant to the provisions of the FCAA. The Western Mojave Desert Ozone Non -Attainment Area (WMDONA) includes part of the San Bernardino County, a portion of the MDAQMD, as well as the Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County. As a result, the MDAQMD prepared its Ozone Attainment Plan in June 2008 to:
1. Demonstrate that the MDAQMD will meet the primary required Federal ozone planning milestones, attainment of the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS by 2019 (revised from June 2021).
2. Present the progress the MDAQMD will make towards meeting all required ozone planning milestones.
3. Discuss the newest 0.075 part per million 8 -hour ozone NAAQS, prep aratory to an expected non-attainment designation for the new NAAQS.
In addition, MDAQMD has developed CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines, which includes significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Southern California Association of Governments 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has adopted the 2020 Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 –2045 RTP/SCS]) and is currently preparing a 2024 update. The 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS is a long -range visioning plan for the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. The plan builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.
The 2024 Connect SoCal plan will continue to build on these efforts to achieve regional emissions standards. Key components of the plan i nclude encouraging active transportation, increasing transit access, transportation and demand management, and prioritizing infill and redevelopment to accommodate growth.
Victorville General Plan 2030
City policies and implementation measures pertaining to air quality are contained in the Resource Element of the City of Victorville General Plan (General Plan). These policies and implementation measures include the following:
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Resource Element
Resource Element Goal 6: Promote clear air with low pollutant concentrations that do not adversely affect respiratory health.
Objective 6.1: Contribute to regional air quality plan attainment Policy 6.1.1: Encourage planning and development activities, that reduce the number and length of single occupant automobile trips
o Implementation Measure 6.1.1.1: Require large projects (exceeding 150,000 square feet of development) to incorporate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques, such as promoting carpooling and transit, as a condition of project approval.
o Implementation Measure 6.1.1.2: Require dust abatement actions for all new construction and redevelopment projects.
o Implementation Measure 6.1.1.3: Maintain parking standards that encourage and facilitate alternative transportation modes, including reduced parking standards for transit-oriented developments, mixed-use developments, and preferential parking for carpoolers.
o Implementation Measure 6.1.1.4: Replace existing gasoline powered City vehicles and equipment with clean fuels and vehicles and equipment. Objective 6.2: Reduce health risks associated with air pollution Policy 6.2.1: Encourage compliance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective,” which provides guidelines for siting n ew sensitive land uses in proximity to air pollutant emitting sources.
o Implementation Measure 6.2.1.1: Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
o Implementation Measure 6.2.1.2: Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU operati ons exceed 300 hours per week).
o Implementation Measure 6.2.1.3: Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of major service and maintenance rail yard. o Implementation Measure 6.2.1.4: Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the Mojave Desert Air District prior to placement.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
o Implementation Measure 6.2.1.5: Avoid siting new sensitive land u ses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 -foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
3.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G o f the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations . Threshold 4: Result in other emissions (su ch as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
3.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to air quality that could result from implementation of the project.
3.1.5.1 Threshold 1: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan Impact Analysis
A SIP is a document that sets forth the state’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. CARB is the lead agency for the preparation of the SIP outlining measures required to achieve the NAAQS. CARB delegates the responsibility of preparing SIP elements to local air districts and requires local air districts to prepare Air Quality Attainment Plans outlining measures required to achieve the CAAQS.
The MDAQMD is the air district responsible for the Planning Area. The applicable air quality planning documents for the Basin are as follows:
MDAQMD SIP Table – State Implementation Plan (SIP) History of MDAQMD Rules MDAQMD 2006 8hr Ozone RACT SIP Analysis
MDAQMD 2014 Supplement to the 2006 8hr Ozone RACT SIP Analysis MDAQMD 2015 8-Hour RACT SIP Analysis
70 ppb Ozone Standard Implementation Evaluation: RACT SIP Analysis; FNDs; and Emission Statement Certification (2019)
MDAQMD 2017 Federal 75 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area)
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
MDAQMD 2008 Federal 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area)
MDAQMD 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan (State and Federal) The primary concern for assessing consistency with the MDAQMD attainment plans is whether the project would induce growth that would result in a net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that exceeds the assumptions used to develop the plans. The basis for the MDAQMD attainment plans are the population growth and regional VMT projections, which are based in part on the land uses established by local General Plans. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the local land use plans would be consistent with growth projections and MDAQMD attainment plans emissions estimates. In the event tha t a project would result in development that is equal to or less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would be considered consistent with the MDAQMD attainment plans. In the event that a project would result in development that results in greater than anticipated growth projections, the project would result in air emissions that may not have been accounted for in the MDAQMD attainment plans and, thus, may obstruct or conflict with the MDAQMD attainment plans.
The MDAQMD attainment plans are based on projections for residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses in the existing Victorville General Plan. Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in less growth at buildout than the existing Victorville Genera l Plan buildout. Table 2-4, Comparison of Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update , in Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a comparison of growth under the existing Victorville General Plan and the proposed General Plan Update. In addition, the General Plan Update would be the land use framework for anticipated future population growth and housing demand. The development pattern proposed under the General Plan Update does not induce growth, but would direct projected future growth to areas where existing or planned infrastructure and services can support growth in or adjacent to the existing communities. The proposed update to the Victorville General Plan Land Use Element would include policies that encourage infill development and controlled growth within the City boundaries and Sphere of Influence by directing focused change consistent with Smart Growth principles. As demonstrated in the Transportation Impact Study, the General Plan Update would decrease the regional and City of Vic torville VMT per service population compared to implementation of the current General Plan.
In addition, the General Plan Update includes the creation of a new Environmental Justice Element. This element would address issues related to the City’s growth th rough the adoption of goals and policies that focus on reducing the health risk of disadvantaged communities, such as reducing pollution exposure and improving air quality in the region. Specific policies proposed as a part of the new Environmental Justice Element with the goal of reducing air emissions include the following:
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Policy EJ-A.1: Create land use patterns that encourage people to walk, bicycle, or use public transit to reduce emissions from mobile sources. Policy EJ -B.1: Partner with the MDAQMD and California Department of Transportation to establish a mitigation program, such as a roadside vegetation barrier program, to reduce the impacts of pollution for homes in the eastern portion of the City near Interstate 15.
Policy EJ -B.2: Require setbacks and vegetative barriers within City rights -of-way between new industrial developments and sensitive land uses, such as residential areas in the City.
Policy EJ-B.3: Improve tree canopy and promote green infrastructure development in disadvantaged communities.
Future development under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with these goals and policies. Compared to the existing Victorville General Plan, the General Plan Update would have slightly less development capacity regarding residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses , and would reduce VMT per service population . Therefore, the General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD attainment plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD attainment plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.1.5.2 Threshold 2: Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutant Impact Analysis
The MDAQMD significance thresholds are used in this analysis to determine the project’s impact on air quality. The MDAQMD identifies quantitative thresholds for criteria pollutants as listed in Table 3. 1-5, MDAQMD Significance Thresholds . These thresholds are used to determine the significance of air quality impacts from construction and operation, discussed separately below.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.1-5. MDAQMD Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutant Threshold (lbs/day)
VOC 137
NOx 137
CO 548
SOx 137
PM10 82
PM2.5 65
Construction
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources (e.g., site preparation, grading, utilities construction, surface improvements, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew). Construction activities from future growth under the General Plan Update would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions. These emissions would include fugitive dust from earth disturbance during site grading and exhaust emissions from operation of heavy equipment and vehicles during construction. Paving activities would emit VOCs during off-gassing.
However, it is currently unknown what specific construction would occur under the General Plan Update and the timeline for these construction activities. Because no specific development projects are proposed at this time, quantification of construction emissions would be speculative. Future construction under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the standard measures for construction adopted by the MDAQMD in the MDAQMD Rule Book, specifically those under Regulation IV. These include implementing all required MDAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to MDAQMD Rule 403 (which requires watering of in active and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations. Future projects would be required to implement MDAQMD Rule 1113 that requires VOC content of paints not exceeding 50 grams per liter.
Further, the future projects would comply with the General Plan Policy Implementation Measure
6.1.2, which requires dust abatement actions for all new construction and redevelopment projects.
Standard measures would reduce particulate matter emissions from dust and VOC emissions from coatings, it cannot be guaranteed that emissions from these sources combined with operation of heavy equipment during future construction would be below the MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in poten tially significant increases in criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities.
Operation
Long-term air pollutant emissions impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. Stationary sources of emissions include the use of Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
architectural coatings, consumer products, landscape equipment, and energy use. Area sources of air pollutant emissions associated with future development under the General Plan Update include fuel combustion emissi ons from space and water heating, fuel combustion emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, ROG emissions from periodic repainting of interior and exterior surfaces, and natural gas use. Increased volumes of vehicles also contribute to regional emissions of criteria pollutants.
Table 3. 1-6, Net Change in Project Operational Emissions, provides calculated operational emissions for project buildout. Emissions are compared to existing operational emissions to calculate the net change in maximum daily emissions.
Table 3.1-6. Net Change in Project Operational Emissions
Source
Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 53,761 1,111 71,697 128 9,380 9,380
Energy 69 597 324 4 47 47
Mobile 2,649 2,773 21,115 45 5,966 1,609
Total Daily Buildout
Emissions
56,479 4,481 93,136 177 15,393 11,036
Existing Emissions 51,987 4,033 81,176 147 8,394 9,398
Net Change in
Operational Emissions +4,492 +448 +11,960 +30 +6,999 +1,638 MDAQMD Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significant? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; MDAQMD = Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gas; SOx = sulfur oxides
As shown in Table 3. 1-6, net operational emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan Update would exceed the applicable MDAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Future projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the MDAQMD rules for project operation including those for new stationary source review (Regulation IX and Regulation XIII). However, these regulations are limited to stationary sources.
Criteria pollutant emissions from future projects under the General Plan Update have the potential to exceed the MDAQMD thresholds from vehicle trips, area sources, and natural gas use .
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in potentially significant increases in criteria pollutant emissions from project operation.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to result in significant increases in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
The proposed General Plan Update would result in temporary increases in criteria pollutants from construction activities and a permanent increas e in VOCs, NOx, PM10, PM 2.5, and CO criteria pollutant emissions from project operation that would potentially exceed the MDAQMD thresholds.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts related to construction and operation emissions by requiring future projects demonstrate compliance with the MDAQMD significance thresholds and implement emissions reduction measures where feasible.
AIR-1: Site-Specific Air Quality Analysis. Before the issuance of a grading or construction permit and in conjunction with any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments documentation that the project is consistent with the MDAQMD significance thresholds contained in the MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines . A project-specific Air Quality Analysis quantifying the potential air emissions of project construction shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. This Air Quality Analysis shall demonstrate that criteria pollutant emissions are below the MDAQMD significance thresholds outlined in the MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines (2020). If the Air Quality Analysis cannot demonstrate that the project is below the MDAQMD significance thresholds before mitigation, project applicant shall provide documentation to the City detailing the measures that would be implemented and that mitigated emissions would be below MDAQMD significance thresholds.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions from future construction activities and operation by requiring future development to demonstrate compliance with the MDAQMD significance thresholds and to implement emissions reduction measures, where feasible. However, it cannot be guaranteed that site -specific analysis and associa ted reduction measures would fully reduce construction and operational impacts. Therefore, temporary increases in criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and permanent increases in criteria pollutant emissions from project operation would be significant and unavoidable.
3.1.5.3 Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors
Impact Analysis
MDAQMD defines sensitive receptors as residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds , and medical facilities. According to the MDAQMD, t he following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated: any industrial project within 1,000 feet; a distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet; a major transportation project within 1,000 feet; a dry cleaner using Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and a gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet . The two primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development proj ects are CO hotspots and TACs. These pollutants are addressed separately below.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections and parking garages, have the potential to create high concentrations of CO, known as “CO hot spots.” Localized CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity at signalized intersections (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak commute hours and meteorological conditions. Under specific meteo rological conditions (e.g., stable conditions that result in poor dispersion), CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land uses. CO hotspots due to traffic were previously a concern at signalized intersections that operate at a level of service (LOS) E or below. However, emissions from motor vehicles, the largest source of CO emissions, have been declining since 1985 despite increases in VMT due to the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix— to generate a significant CO impact (County of San Bernardino 2019). Because this volume at a single intersection in a single hour is not possible, no CO hotspots have been reported in the Basin even at the most congested intersections (County of San Bernardino 2019).
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially increase the risk of CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in the City, and impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
The greatest potential for TAC emissions during project construction activities would be related to emissions of DPM associated with heavy equipment operations during construction activities such as site preparation, grading, and utilities installation. Construction-related activities would result in short -term emissions of DPM from off -road, heavy -duty diesel equipment exhaust.
However, specific future construction activities under the General Plan Update are currently unknown. Construction activities wo uld be spread throughout the City and generally would not take place in a singular location or at the same time.
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period of time. Health risks are generally evaluated over a 30 -year exposure period. The duration of construction activities near any specific sensitive receptor would be temporary and short term.
Additionally, with ongoing implementation of USEPA and CARB requirements for cleaner fuels, off-road diesel engine retrofits, and new, low-emission diesel engine types, the DPM emissions of Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
individual equipment would be substantially reduced over the years as construction of projects consistent with the General Plan Update continues. Impacts associated with tempora ry DPM emissions would be less than significant.
Operation
MDAQMD lists several potential sources of substantial DPM emissions that currently exist or may be developed under the General Plan Update and required screening distances . The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated: any industrial project within 1,000 feet; a distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1 ,000 feet; a major transportation project within 1,000 feet; a dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and a gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet.
The General Plan Update would accommodate new sources of other TACs, such as industrial land uses, and may accommodate new sensitive receptors in areas with existing sources of TACs. TACs from industrial uses vary between individual operations but generally include metals, solvents, dioxin, benzene, or formaldehyde. Sources of other TACs currently found in the Planning Area or that may be accommodated by the General Plan Update include dry-cleaning facilities, distribution centers, gas stations, automotive repair shops, medical facilities, medical and other laboratory research and development operations.
In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy -duty diesel motor vehicle idling to reduce public exposure to DPM and other TACs and their pollutants. The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. The measure does not allow diesel-fueled commercial vehicles to idle for more than 5 minutes at any given time. Potential localized air toxic impacts from on -site sources of DPM would be minimal because heavy-duty trucks would take multiple routes throughout the City, and the trucks that would frequent the area would not idle for extended periods of time.
TAC emissions are subje ct to new source review and regulated by the MDAQMD under Regulation IX Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, and Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because specific project details, including location and use, are not currently known at this time, there is a potential for future facilities to expose sensitive receptors to TACs and for new sensitive receptors to be sited within the screening-level distance of a source of TACs.
This impact is potentially significant.
Assessment of Project Operational Health Impacts
As shown in Table 3.1-6, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in significant and unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions. However, current scientific, technological, and modeling Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
limitations prevent the relation of expected adverse operational criteria pollutant emissions to likely health consequences. Therefore, this section explains in detail why it is not feasible to provide such a meaningful assessment of potential health impacts from operational emissions.
Although the General Plan Update is expected to exceed the MDAQMD’s numeric regional mass daily emissions thresholds for VOC, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the populations adjacent to future projects and in the Basin. The regional thresholds are based in part on Section 180(e) of the CAA and are intended to provide a means of consistency in significance determination in the environmental review process. Notwithstanding, simply exceeding the regional mass daily thresholds does not constitute a particular health impact to an individual nearby. This is because the mass daily thresholds are emitted into the air in pounds per day, whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at a particular location (e.g., parts per million by volume of air or micrograms per cubic meter of air).
State and federal ambient air quality standards were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (SCAQMD 2015), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) acknowledged that, for criteria pollutants, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify operational health impacts from land development for various reasons, including modeling limitations, and where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Furthermore, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in the Sierra Club litigation, curre ntly available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air pollutant emissions and specific human health impacts (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD explained that “running the photochemical grid model used for predicting ozone attainment with emissions solely from one project would thus not be likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved” (SJVAPCD 2015). O 3 is not directly emitted into the air but is inst ead formed as O 3 precursors undergo complex chemical reactions through sunlight exposure (SJVAPCD 2015).
In fact, the SJVAPCD indicated that even a project with criteria pollutant emissions that exceed a CEQA threshold would not necessarily cause localized human health impacts because, even when faced with relatively high emissions, the SJVAPCD cannot determine “whether and to what extent emissions from an individual project directly impact human health in a particular area” (SJVAPCD 2015). The SCAQMD reiterated that “an agency should not be required to perform analyses that do not produce reliable or meaningful results” (SCAQMD 2015).
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Additionally, the SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region and that, based on its own modeling in the 2012 AQMP, a reduction of 432 tons/864,000 pounds per day of NO x and a reduction of 187 tons/374,000 pounds per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at the highest monitored site by only 9 parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOx or ROG emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations (SCAQMD 2015).
To underscore this point, the SCAQMD goes on to state that it has only been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources as part of its rulemaking activity.
Specifically, 6,620 pounds per day of NOx and 89,180 pounds per day of VOCs were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O 3. As shown in Table 3. 1-6 implementation of the General Plan Update would generate far less than 6,620 pounds per day of NO x or 89,190 poun ds per day of VOC emissions and is considered a conservative analysis. Additionally, the potential emissions from the proposed project would be emitted throughout the City and Sphere of Influence, and the impacts of individual projects and number of potentially affected receptors are not currently known.
Therefore, the project’s emissions are not sufficiently high to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level. Further, the SJVAPCD acknowledges this: “The Air District is simply not equipped to analyze what extent the criteria pollutant emissions of an individual CEQA project directly impacts human health in a particular area... even for projects with relatively high levels of emissi ons of criteria pollutant precursor emissions” (SCAQMD 2015). Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to expose sensitive receptors substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of exposure to TACs during project operation.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR -2 would reduce TAC impacts by requiring some future projects under the General Plan Update to prepare a Health Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the project would not pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
AIR-2: Health Risk Assessment. A Health Risk Assessment shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for future projects that would generate toxic air con taminants (such as diesel particulate matter) in the General Plan Update Planning Area or that Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-21 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
would locate a new sensitive receptor within the following screening-level distances identified in the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District CEQA and Fed eral Conformity Guidelines (2020): any industrial project within 1,000 feet; a distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet; a major transportation project within 1,000 feet; a dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and a gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet. A project shall not be considered for approval until a Health Risk Assessment has been completed and approved by the MDAQMD. The methodology for the Health Risk Assessment shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidelines for the preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the Health Risk Assessment shall identify appropriate measures, such as upgrading building ventilation systems, to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level, or the sensitive receptor or proposed facility shall be sited in another location.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -2 would reduce impacts by requiring projects consistent with the General Plan Update to prepare a Health Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the project would not pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Future stationary sources subject to the MDAQMD rules for new source review combined with Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would be reduced to less than significant. However, impacts from siting new receptors near existing facilities would remain significant because not all potential sources of TAC emissions would be subject to new source review. For example, new stationary equipment would be subject to new source review, but not potential exposure to DPM along roadways serving a project that may result in a substantial increase in truck trips. Exposure to TAC emissions during operation would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.1.5.4 Threshold 4: Odors
Impact Analysis
The analysis of potential odor sources from construction and operation of the General Plan Update is below.
Construction
Construction associated with implementat ion of the General Plan Update could result in minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust, asphalt paving, and use of architectural coatings and solvents. However, the MDAQMD Rule Book measures to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel engines discussed in Section 3. 1.5.2 to reduce criteria emissions would also apply to potential odors during construction. In addition, because construction equipment would be operating at various locations throughout the General P lan Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-22 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Update boundary, construction would not take place all at once, and because construction activities near existing receptors would be temporary, impacts associated with odors during construction are not anticipated to be significant.
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations. The General Plan Update accommodates the construction of commercial, retail, office, and resid ential land uses that do not typically result in a source of nuisance odors associated with operation. However, the General Plan Update would have the potential to place sensitive receptors near an existing odor source, such as industrial operations or wastewater treatment plant. In addition, the General Plan Update would also accommodate new industrial land uses that would have the potential to produce objectionable odors during industrial processes and manufacturing. Future development would be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating odor complaint.
Therefore, future development that proposes one of the uses listed previously or places sensitive - receptor development near an existing source would have a potentially significant odor impact.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to result in odor emissions during operation of some future projects.
Mitigation Measures
AIR-3: Odor Management Plan. If it is determined during project -level environmental review that a discretionary project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared and submitted by the project applicant prior to project approval to ensure compliance with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) Rule 402 for projects in the Planning Area. The following types of projects with the specified buffer distances from sensitive receptors have the potential to generate substantial odors: wastewater treatment plant (2 miles), sanitary landfill (1 mile) , t ransfer station (1 mile) , composting facility (1 mile) , petroleum refinery (2 miles), asphalt batch plant (1 mile), chemical manufacturing (1 mile), fiberglass manufacturing (1 mile) , painting/coating operations (1 mile) , food processing facility (1 mile), feed lot/ dairy (1 mile), and rendering plant (1 mile). The odor management plan prepared for these facilities shall identify control technologies that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
enforcement mechanisms. Control technologies may include but are not limited to scrubbers (e.g., air pollution control devices) at an industrial facility. Control technologies identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -3 would reduce odor impacts from t he General Plan Update to less than significant by requiring proposed new odor sources or the placement of new receptors near an existing odor source to prepare an odor management plan and install control technologies, as appropriate. Therefore, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
3.1.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential cumulative impacts relating to air quality that could result from implementation of the project.
3.1.6.1 Cumulative Threshold 1: Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, the proposed General Plan Update is inherently cumulative and considers cumulative development that could occur in the Planning Area over a defined time frame. The MDAQMD attainment plans are intended to address cumulative impacts in the Basin based on future growth predicted by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Compared to the existing Victorville General Plan, the General Plan Update would have slightly less development capacity regarding residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses.
Cumulative development is not expected to result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting with the MDAQMD air quality management plans because the maj ority of cumulative projects would propose development that is consistent with the applicable growth projections incorporated into local air quality management plans. Implementation of the project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not c onflict with or obstruct implementation of MDAQMD air quality plans. A cumulative impact would not occur.
3.1.6.2 Cumulative Threshold 2: Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutant An existing cumulative impact exists in the Basin related to O3, and PM10. As previously described implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to result in permanent increases in criteria pollutant emissions related to NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, and CO. Mitigation Measure AIR- 1 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions from future construction activities and operation by requiring future development to demonstrate compliance with the MDAQMD significance thresholds and to implement emissions reduction measures where feasible. However, it cannot be guaranteed that site -specific analysis and associated reduction measures would fully reduce construction and operational impacts. Therefore, the General Plan Update would have the potential Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions. This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
3.1.6.3 Cumulative Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors
A cumulative impact related to CO hotspots would occur if the CO emissions from traffic generated by cumulative project development in the region would combine to create a CO hotspot.
As discussed in Section 3. 1.5.3, emissions from motor vehicles, the primary contributor to a CO hotspot, has been dramatically declining. A CO hotspot has not occurred in the Basin and with the addition of increased vehicle emissions efficiencies throughout the horizon year of the General Plan Update, CO hotspots are not anticipated to occur. In addition, cumulative projects located in adjacent jurisdictions, including incorporated cities, adjacent counties, and state -managed lands, would be required to comply with CARB’s recommendations for siting new sensitive receptors and with regulations set by the MDAQMD. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact associated with CO hotspots would not occur, and the proposed project’s cumulative contribution would be less than significant.
In addition, cumulative projects located in the Basin would have the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact associated with sensitive receptors if, combined, they would expose sensitive receptors to a substantial concentration of TACs that would significantly increase health risk. Impacts would generally be localized and not cumulative in nature because impacts related to a particular source of TACs would be limited to the proximity of the source. Cumulative projects with the potential to generate substantial pollutant concentrations would be required to comply with the CARB program to reduce diesel emissions as well as M DAQMD siting requirements .
Similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects in adjacent jurisdictions would be required to comply with MDAQMD’s recommendations for siting new sensitive receptors and requirements for reducing diesel emissions and with regulations set by the MDAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project, combined with other cumulative projects in the region, would result in a less significant cumulative impact associated with sensitive receptors.
3.1.6.4 Cumulative Threshold 4: Odors
Impacts relative to objectionable odors are limited to the area immediately surrounding the odor source and are not cumulative in nature because the air emissions that cause odors disperse beyond the sources of the odor. As the emissions disperse, the odor becomes decreasin gly detectable.
Therefore, the General Plan Update, combined with other cumulative projects in the region, would not result in a cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce potential operational odor impacts to less than significant by requiring future projects to prepare odor management plans and install control technology, as appropriate. Because construction equipment would be operating at various locations throughout the Planning Area, construction would not take place all at once, Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-25 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
and because construction activities near existing receptors would be temporary, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
Draft PEIR 3.1-26 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.2 Biological Resources
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project). The analysis in this section is based on the information in the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Harris & Associates (2022) for the project (Appendix C).
This biological resources analysis included a database and literature review to document the existing biological conditions of the Planning Area. The San Bernardino County (County) geographic information system (GIS) and National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper databases were used to identify and quantify the vegetation communities and aquatic resources in the Planning Area. No on-site biological surveys or field reconnaissance were conducted as a part of this project. The results of this review provide i nformation on the potential constraints to project development due to the presence of sensitive biological resources.
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions for the project as they relate to biological resources.
3.2.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The vegetation communities and land cover types identified in the Planning Are a include desert riparian, desert wash, freshwater emergent wetland, fresh water, riverine, valley foothill riparian, alkali desert scrub, desert scr ub, sagebrush scrub, annual grassland, Joshua tree, agriculture/orchard/vineyard lands, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed land (Figure 3.2 -1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types). Table 3.2-1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Planning Area, presents the acreages of the vegetation communities and land cover types in the Planning Area.
Table 3.2-1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Planning Area Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type Planning Area (acres)2 Aquatic and Riparian
Desert riparian1 503
Desert wash1 28.7
Freshwater emergent wetland1 6.6
Fresh water1 158.7
Riverine1 104.4
Valley foothill riparian1 41.8
Subtotal 843.2
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.2-1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Planning Area Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type Planning Area (acres)2 Scrub
Alkali desert scrub1 1,199
Desert scrub1 19,481.3
Sagebrush scrub1 585.1
Subtotal 21,265.4
Upland
Annual grassland 1,882
Subtotal 1,882
Woodland
Joshua tree1 1,022.1
Subtotal 1,022.1
Disturbed and Urban/Developed
Agriculture/orchard/vineyard lands 82.8
Disturbed habitat 210
Urban/developed land 22,080.2
Subtotal 22,373
Total 47,385.7
Sources: CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004, Holland 1986.
Notes:
1 Sensitive vegetation community as designated by CDFW and WMP (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004). 2 Vegetation community acreages have been rounded to the nearest one-tenth acre.
Aquatic and Riparian Vegetation Communities
Aquatic and riparian vegetation communities that occur in the Planning Area include desert riparian, desert wash, freshwater emergent wetland, fresh water, riverine, and valley foothill riparian. These vegetation communities are considered sensitive biological resources as designated by CDFW and WMP (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004) because they provide critical, high -quality habitat for plant and wildlife species, including birds, mammals, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, inhabiting the Planning Area (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004).
Desert Riparian
Desert riparian is an open, broadleafed, winter -deciduous streamside forest dominated by Freemont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and willow species (Salix sp.). The open canopy allows a dense shrubby understory of saltbush (Atriplex sp.) and sand bar willow (Salix exigua) to occur.
Desert riparian occurs along the larger desert rivers where the vegetation has not been cleared for irrigated agriculture or dewatered by upstream diversions.
Approximately 503 acres of desert ripa rian occurs in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area, primarily along the Mojave River (Figure 3.2-1).
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Desert Wash
Desert wash is an o pen, drought -deciduous community within sandy or gravelly washes and arroyos in the lower deserts, la rgely in frost -free areas. These washes occur along the larger drainages of the lower Mojave Desert and typically have braided channels that are rearranged with every surface flow event.
Approximately 28.7 acres of desert wash occurs in a small area in the eastern portion of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater emergent wetland is dominated by perennial, emergent wetland plants, often forming a completely closed canopy dominated by bulrush (Scirpus sp.) and cattail (Typha sp.). Freshwater emergent wetland occurs in stagnant or slow -moving fresh waters that are permanently flooded, which allows for the accumulation of deep, peaty soils. These wetlands typically occur near river mouths and around the margins of lakes or springs.
Approximately 6.6 acres of f reshwater emergent wetland occurs in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area, primarily along the Mojave River (Figure 3.2-1).
Fresh Water
Fresh water habitat is composed of year-round bodies of water in the form of lakes, streams, ponds, or rivers. This includes portions of water bodies that are usually covered by water and contain less than 10 percent vegetative cover.
Approximately 158.7 acres of fresh water occurs primarily in the northern portion of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Riverine
Riverine is composed of intermittent or continually running water that originates at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope and volume of surface runoff. Ripa rian and emergent wetland habitats often occur adjacent to or surrounding riverine habitats.
Approximately 104.4 acres of riverine habitat occurs in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area, primarily consisting of the Mojave River (Figure 3.2-1).
Valley Foothill Riparian
Valley foothill riparian is a tall, dense, winter -deciduous, broadleafed riparian forest. The tree canopy is typically closed and moderately to densely composed of a mix of species, including boxelder ( Acer negundo ), blac k walnut ( Juglans californica ), California sycamore ( Platanus Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
racemosa), and cottonwood and willow species. The understory typically consists of shade - tolerant shrubs. Valley foothill riparian occurs in floodplains of low-gradient, depositional streams but has largely been cleared for agriculture, flood control, and urban development.
Approximately 41.8 acres of valley foothill riparian occurs in the eastern portion of the Planning Area, primarily in the Mojave River floodplain (Figure 3.2-1).
Scrub Vegetation Communities
Scrub vegetation communities that occur in the Planning Area include alkali desert scrub, desert scrub, and sagebrush scrub. . These vegetation communities are considered sensitive biological resources by state and local regulations because they provide critical, high-quality habitat for plant and wildlife species, including birds, mammals, invertebrates, and reptiles, inhabiting the Planning Area (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004).
Alkali Desert Scrub
Alkali desert scrub is a heterogeneous habitat with a variety of plant species that changes considerably depending on the moisture, salinity, and topography of where it is growing. Some primary perennial shrub and subshrub species in alkali desert scrub include arrow-weed (Pluchea sericea), black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), alkali goldenbush ( Isocoma acradenia), and species of rabbitbrush species (Ericameria sp.), seablite (Suaeda sp.), saltbush, and saltcedar (Tamarix sp.).
Approximately 1,199 acres of alkali desert scrub occurs in the western and northwestern portions of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Desert Scrub
Desert scrub is composed of low, grayish shrubs typically dominated by a single saltbush species mixed with succulent species. Total cover in desert scrub is typically low, with bare ground between the widely spaced shrubs. Desert scrub is often distributed along the margins of dry lake beds in desert habitats.
Approximately 19,481.3 acres of desert scrub occurs throughout the Planning Area, primarily around the edges (Figure 3.2-1).
Sagebrush Scrub
Sagebrush scrub is composed of soft, woody shrubs usually with bare ground under and between shrubs. This community is typically dominated by big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata). Growth occurs mostly in late spring and early summer and is dormant in the winter. Sagebrush scrub occurs on a variety of soils and terrain, from rocky, well-drained slopes to fine-textured valley soils with high water tables.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Approximately 585.1 acres of sagebrush scrub occurs in the northern, southeaster n, and southwestern portions of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Upland Vegetation Community
The upland vegetation community that occurs in the Planning Area includes annual grassland. This vegetation community is not considered a sensitive biological community by state and local regulations but annual grassland has the potential to provide habitat for plant and wildlife species, including birds, small mammals, and reptiles, inhabiting the Planning Area (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004).
Annual Grassland
Annual grassland is composed of dense to sparse annual grasses. Annual grassland typically occurs in fine-textured, clay soils and can be moist or waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall.
Approximately 1,882 acres of ann ual grassland occurs throughout the Planning Area, primarily around the edges (Figure 3.2-1).
Woodland Vegetation Community
The woodland vegetation community that occurs in the Planning Area includes Joshua trees.
Joshua trees are considered a sensitive pl ant species and a sensitive biological resource by state and local regulations as a vegetation community because it and provides habitat for plant and wildlife species, including birds, bats, mammals, and reptiles, inhabiting the Planning Area.
Joshua Tree
Joshua trees (western [Yucca brevifolia] and eastern [Yucca jaegeriana]) are slow-growing, tree- like (upright) members of the Agave family. They are distributed on gentle slopes and valley floors of upper bajadas and sandy areas. The understory of this hi ghly variable community typically includes creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata ) and/or species of saltbush. The Joshua tree is an archetypal plant of the Mojave Desert that may live several hundred years and that provides valuable habitat for a variety of nat ive wildlife species. Increasing global temperatures, off -road vehicle use, and illegal dumping have adverse effects on the health of Joshua trees. Due to the number of threats facing the survival of Joshua trees, in September 2020, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) listed the Joshua tree as a candidate for listing in the California Endangered Species Act. In April 2022, the CDFW acknowledged that threats from climate change, development, and other human influence will place Joshua trees in greater peril in the future but decided that listing the species as threatened was unwarranted at that time. A full decision is expected in October 2022 on whether the species will remain listed in the California Endangered Species Act.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Joshua trees are also protected by the California Desert Plant Protection Act, which requires a tag through the California Department of Food and Agriculture if five or more trees are to be removed.
In addition, Joshua trees are protected by Chapter 13.33 of the Victorville Municipal Code, which prohibits the destruction or removal of Joshua trees without written consent from the City ’s Director of Community Services.
Approximately 1,022.1 acres of Joshua trees occurs in the northern and southwestern portions of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Disturbed and Urban/Developed Lands
The disturbed and urban/developed lands that occur in the Planning Area include agriculture/orchard/vineyard, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed land. These disturbed and urban land covers are not considered sensitive biological resources by state and local regulations but they have a moderate to low potential to provide habitat for plant and wildlife species inhabiting the Planning Area (CDFW 2022a; BLM 2004).
Agriculture/Orchard/Vineyard Lands
Agricultural land includes areas occupied by dairies and livestock feed yards or areas that have been tilled for use as croplands, groves, orchards, or vineyards.
Approximately 82.8 acres of agriculture/orchard/vineyard lands occurs in the eastern porti on of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1). Agricultural land in the Planning Area primarily consists of row crops, orchards, and vineyards.
Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat consists of previously disturbed areas that either are devoid of vegetation (dirt roads/trails) or support scattered non-native species such as mustard (Brassicaceae sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and thistle (Centaurea sp.). Habitats that can be described as disturbed are composed of a mix of native and non -native species but can be solely non-native species in some cases.
Approximately 210 acres of disturbed habitat occurs mostly around the edges of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
Urban/Developed Land
Urban/developed land includes areas of existing residential, commercial, and industrial development (locations of existing manufactured structures), roadways, parking lots, pedestrian paths, horticultural open spaces, la ndscape buffers and courtyards, plazas, gardens, recreation fields, and areas dominated by non-native (introduced) vegetation.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The majority of the Planning Area, 22,080.2 acres, consists of urban/developed land (Figure 3.2-1).
3.2.1.2 Aquatic Resources
The Mojave River runs through the northern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2 -2, Aquatic Resources). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory report run for the Planning Area classifies the Mojave River as riverin e and the riparian corridor surrounding the river as Freshwater Emergent Wetland and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland. Smaller streams and creeks that are tributary to the Mojave River are identified in the National Wetlands Inventory report throughout the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-2).
Freshwater ponds and lakes surrounding the Mojave River occur primarily in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the Planning Area as well (Figure 3.2-2).
Aquatic resources delineations were not conducted for the Planning Area. However, wetlands and waters potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA or the Porter-Cologne Act, and the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code likely occur in the Planning Area (associated with the Mojave River). The aquatic vegetation communities, including desert riparian, desert wash, freshwater emergent wetland, fresh water, riverine, and valley foothill riparian, occur in the Planning Area and may fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW (Figure 3.2-1).
Wetland and non-wetland waters including lakes, ponds, non-vegetated stream channels, erosional features, gullies, and concrete -lined channels have the potential to occur in the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-2). These features may fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW.
3.2.1.3 Sensitive Species
Sensitive species are those recognized by federal, state, or local agencies as being potentially vulnerable to impacts because of rarity, local or regional reductions in population numbers, isolation/restricted genetic flow, or other factors. Special -status plants include those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS and CDFW; those considered sensitive by the CDFW; and those species included in the California Rare Plant Rank inventory, maintained by the California Native Plant Society . Sensitive wildlife species include those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS and CDFW; or those considered sensitive by the CDFW.
Distributions of historical sensitive plant and wildlife species observations in the vicinity of the Planning Area were reviewed in preparation of this letter report (BLM 2004 ; Calflora 2022 ; CDFW 2022a, 2022b; CNPS 2022; USFWS 2022). Figure 3.2-3, Sensitive Species Potential to Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Occur, shows the historical documented occurrences of many of the sensitive plant and wildlife species within the Planning Area. It should be noted that some of the sensitive species documented in the Planning Area by the Victorville General Plan 2030 or West Mojave Plan (WMP) may not be shown on Figure 3.2-3 because that data was not publicly available. Ten sensitive plant species and 36 sensitive wildlife species are either known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area, and are listed in the following subsections.
Sensitive Plant Species
The sensitive plant species that are either known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area include beaver dam breadroot (Pediomelum castoreum), Booth’s evening-primrose (Eremothera boothii ssp. boothii), desert cymopterus (Cymopterus deserticola), Mojave monkeyflower ( Diplacus mohavensis ), sagebrush loeflingia ( Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum), San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada), small -flowered androstephium ( Androstephium breviflorum ), southern mountains skullcap (Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana), and white pygmy-poppy (Canbya candida) (Figure 3.2-3).
Sensitive Wildlife Species
The sensitive wildlife species that are either known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area include arroyo toad ( Anaxyrus californicus ), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii ), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia ), brown -crested flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus), California red-legged frog ( Rana draytonii), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), hoary bat ( Lasiurus cinereus), least Bell ’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ), Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), Mojave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis), Mojave river vole (Microtus californicus mohavensis ), Mojave tui chub ( Siphateles bicolor mohavensis ), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), pallid bat ( Antrozous pallidus), pallid San Diego pocket mouse ( Chaetodipus fallax pallidus ), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus ), San Emigdio blue butterfly ( Plebulina emigdionis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), summer tan ager (Piranga rubra), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), yellow- breasted chat ( Icteria virens ), Townsend ’s big -eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii ), tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor), Victorville shoulderband ( Helminthoglypta mohaveana ), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata ), western yellow -billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), yellow-breasted chat ( Icteria virens), and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) (Figure 3.2-3).
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
As previously discussed, the majority of the Planning Area is developed, disturbed, or occupied with agricultural fields, which provides limited suitable habitat for the sensitive plant and wildlife species that are known to occur or have a potential to occur (Figure 3.2-1). However, large areas of native habitat occur around the edges and in the north-central portion of the Planning Area that support the sensitive plant and wildlife species listed in the previous subsections (F igures 3.2-1 and 3.2-3). In addition, the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor that occurs in the northern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife species.
Critical Habitat
The potential for critical habitat to occur in the Planning Area was also analyzed. Critical habi tat for southwestern willow flycatcher occurs along the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor that runs through the northern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area and is displayed o n Figure 3.2 -4, Critical Habitat. Critical habitat for ar royo toad and desert tortoise occurs south and north of the Planning Area, respectively.
3.2.1.4 Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors include both local movement routes and regional corridors and linkages. Local movement routes often connect resources, such as wa ter sources, foraging areas, and den/cover sites, on a localized level, often on a daily or nightly basis. Regional movement corridors or linkages connect larger patches of open space and are important to wildlife for seasonal movements and for the long-term genetic flow between subpopulations. For large mammals, regional corridors are often required to provide a network of large-scale foraging or hunting areas. Corridors can be continuous habitat features, or “stepping stones,” such as rest areas along a b ird migration route.
Corridors often follow linear topographic, water, or vegetation features. The overall biological value of a site is based on a variety of factors, including habitat types present, quality of habitat, diversity of biological resources present, potential to support sensitive biological resources, patch size, and connectivity to other high-quality habitat, among others.
The Victorville General Plan 2030 (City of Victorville 2008) and the WMP (BLM 2004) were reviewed to confirm the presence of designated habitat linkages and dispersal corridors in the Planning Area. These documents identify the Mojave River and riparian corridor that runs through the northern and northeastern portion of the Planning Area as an important wildlife habitat and movement corridor connecting the open spaces within and outside the Planning Area. The Mojave River also provides a flyway stopover for migratory birds and raptors and final remaining occupied habitat for endemic species, including Mojave River vole, Mojav e shoulderband snail, and formerly Mojave tui chub (now thought to be extirpated) (City of Victorville 2008). Open areas of native habitat, primarily Mojave River and riparian corridor and desert scrub, along the northern, northeastern, and southwestern edges and in the north-central portion of the Planning Area provide Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
both local movement routes and regional linkages within the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1). These native habitat areas provide three primary landscape linkages: (1) east–west across the northe rn portion of the Planning Area; (2) north–south across the northeastern portion of the Planning Area, as part of the Mojave River corridor; and (3) north–south across the southwestern portion of the Planning Area.
The majority of the Planning Area is not likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor because it is primarily made up of urban/developed land that limits wildlife movement. However, the swaths of native habitat around the edges and running through the north -central portion of the Planning Area provide connections to the open space areas within and surrounding the Planning Area that provide local and regional movement for both common and sensitive wildlife species.
3.2.2 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes federal, state, regional, and local regulations, plans, policies, and programs that provide protection and management of sensitive biological resources that are applicable to the project. The federal government administers nonmarine plant- and wildlife-related issues through the USFWS, while waters of the United States issues are administered by the USACE. California law relating to wetland, water -related, and wildlife issues is administered by the CDFW. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts associated with a proposed project or program are assessed with regard to significance criteria determined by the CEQA lead agency pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. Biological resources-related laws and regulations that apply include the federal Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, CWA, CEQA, California Endangered Species Act, and California Fish and Game Code.
3.2.2.1 Federal
Clean Water Act, Section 404 (33 CFR 328.3[a])
These provisions regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities that discharge dredge or fill material into waters of the United States can be authorized by the USACE.
Federal Endangered Species Act, Sections 7 and 9 (16 USC 1531 et seq.; 50 CFR Part 402)
This prohibits the “take” (i.e., harm, harass, or kill individuals, or destroy associated habitat) of species federally listed as threatened or endangered. Take incidental to otherwise lawful activities can be authorized by the USFWS through a permit under Sections 4(d), 7, or 10(a).
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703–712; 50 CFR 10)
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the direct or indirect take of migratory birds and their active nests unless permitted.
3.2.2.2 State
Birds of Prey Protection Provision (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5)
This provision prohibits the taking of birds of prey (Order Falconiformes and Strigiformes) including their nests and eggs.
California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.)
Section 2050 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits any activities that would jeopardize or take a species designated as threatened or endangered by the state.
Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600) The California Fish and Game Code requi res any person who proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or their tributaries, or use materials from a streambed, to submit a notification for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the CDFW.
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602
Section 1602 regulates water resources in the State of California. Activities that divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river stream or lake may be authorized by the CDFW. CDFW jurisdiction includes intermittent and perennial watercourses and extends to the top of the bank of a stream or lake if unvegetated or to the limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation, located contiguous to the watercourse, if the stream or lake is vegetated.
California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any birds, except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
CEQA, as amended (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) The goal of CEQA is to assist California public agencies in identifying potenti al significant negative environmental impacts caused by their actions and avoiding or mitigating those impacts when feasible.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
California Fully Protected Wildlife Species Provision (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515)
These provisions prohibit the taking of fully protected birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish.
California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900–1913)
These provisions preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants of the state.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB regulates impacts to water quality under Section 401 of the CWA. A project must comply with Section 401 of the CWA before the USACE can issue a Section 404 Permit. The RWQCB will is sue a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver of Certification, depending on the extent of impacts to waters of the United States. The RWQCB also regulates impact to waters of the state (usually limited to “isolated” waters or swales that may not fall under USACE jurisdiction) under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, as amended (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2800–2835)
The primary objective of the Natural Community Conservation Planning program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level while accommodating compatible land use. The program seeks to anticipate and prevent the controversies and gridlock caused by species ’ listing by focusing on the long -term suitability of wildlife and plant communities and including key interests in the process.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) Regulated by the RWQCB for impacts to waters of the state. Although water quality issues related to impacts to waterways are normally addressed during 401 Water Quality Certification, should a water of the State of California be determined by the USACE not to have CWA jurisdiction, Porter- Cologne would be addressed under a Construction General Permit, State General Waste Discharge Order, or Waste Discharge Requirements, depending on the level of impact and the properties of the waterway.
3.2.2.3 Local
Victorville General Plan 2030
Resource Element
The Planning Area is subject to the goals and policies outlined in the General Plan Elements under the Victorville General Plan 2030 (City of Victorville 2008). The Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan 2030 provides detailed goals and policies to protect and maintain natural Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
resources, such as water supply and water quality, c ultural resources (including archaeological, paleontological, and historic al), biological resources (including plants, wildlife, and the West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan), air quality, mineral resources, outdoor recreation, natural hazards, agricultural resources, and solid waste management. The following goals and policies apply to biological resources.
Biological and Open Space Resources
Goal 4: Conservation of Important Habitat. Preserve land containing native habitat that sustains rare, threatened or endangered plants and wildlife species. Objective 4.1: Preservation of natural communities that support rare, threatened and/or endangered plants and wildlife species throughout the Planning Area. Policy 4.1.1: Encourage development of natural habitat that supports rare, threatened or endangered plants and wildlife (i.e. “sensitive” species), or require restoration of the same type of impacted habitat within an existing, planned or potential conservation area.
Implementation Measure 4.1.1.2: Continue to require biological surveys and an assessment of impacts to biological resources for new “greenfield” projects, as part of the City ’s CEQA implementation procedures. Update the City ’s database of sensitive habitats with findings of project -level biological surveys and reports.
Policy 4.1.2: Support and Participate in the West Mojave Plan. Objective 4.2: Permanent Conservation of Mojave River Corridor Ecological Values. Policy 4.2.1: Generally prohibit private or public development projects or major infrastructure facilities on land within the Mojave River corridor, where biological surveys have determined there is habitat that supports rare, threatened, and/or endangered plants or wildlife. Allow minor encroachments into such habitat, for critical public fa cilities and recreational trails, where reliable assurances are provided that no loss of sensitive species will occur.
Victorville Municipal Code
Chapter 13.33, Preservation and Removal of Joshua Trees , in the Victorville Municipal Code requires that the proper and necessary steps be taken to protect and preserve, to the greatest extent possible, Joshua trees in all areas of the city. Chapter 13.33 prohibits any person to cut, damage, destroy, dig up, or harvest any Joshua tree without the prior written consent of the Director of Parks and Recreation or their designee.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
West Mojave Plan
The Planning Area is within the WMP Area ( WMPA) and is subject to the requirements and conservation responsibilities outlined in the plan (BLM 2004). The WMP is a habitat conservation plan and an amendment to the federal California Desert Conservation Area Plan (BLM 1980). The purpose of the WMP is to develop management strategies for the desert tortoise, Mojave ground squirrel, and over 100 other sensitive plants, wildlife and natural communities that would conserve those resources throughout the western Mojave Desert, while at the same time establishing a streamlined program for compliance with the regulatory requirements o f the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Agencies, local jurisdictions, and others with a stake in the future of the western Mojave Desert collaborated in the development of the WMP.
The WMP covers the 6.2 -million-acre WMPA, including 3.2 million acres of public land and 3 million acres of private land, in portions of San Bernardino, Inyo, Kern, and Los Angeles Counties.
Measures applicable to each jurisdiction within the WMPA are outlined in the WMP Appendix B.
Measures a pplicable to the Planning Area include those for burrowing owl, desert tortoise, Ferruginous hawk, Mojave ground squirrel, 10 Mojave River bioregion species (brown -crested flycatcher, Least Bell ’s vireo, Lucy ’s warbler [ Oreothlypis luciae ], southwestern wi llow flycatcher, summer tanager, vermilion flycatcher [ Pyrocephalus obscurus ], yellow -bellied flycatcher [Empidonax flaviventris], yellow warbler [Setophaga petechia], Mojave River vole, and northwestern pond turtle), and prairie falcon.
3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15000 et seq.) defines “significant effect on the environment” as a “substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines further indicates that a significant effect on biological resources may occur if the project would:
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identifi ed as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Threshold 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Threshold 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologic interruption, or other means.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Threshold 4: 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. Threshold 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan.
3.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to biological resources that could result from implementation of the project.
3.2.4.1 Threshold 1: Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species Impact Analysis
Sensitive Plant Species
The Planning A rea consists primarily of developed land, including urban/developed land, disturbed habitat, and agricultural fields, and no critical habitat for sensitive plant species occur s in the Planning Area (Figures 3.2 -1 and 3.2-4). However, large areas of native habitat, including the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor, scrub, grassland, and woodland, occur around the edges and in the north -central portion of the Planning Area that can support sensitive plant species (Figure 3.2-1). Ten sensitive plant species are either known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area. Future development consistent with the project could result in significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant species.
As discussed in Section 3.2.2, Regulatory Setting, development projects in the Planning Area are required, as a condition of approval, to comply with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources (City of Victorville 2008).
Specific to sensitive plant species, the project would comply with Goal 4, Conservation of Important Habitat, which prioritizes the preservation of natural communities that supports rare, threatened, or endangered plant species and requires biological surveys and assessments of impacts to biological resources for new “greenfield” projects, as part of the City’s CEQA implementation procedures. Under General Plan Resource Element Goal 4, Policy 4.1.1, projects that would impact sensitive plant species habitat would be required to provide restoration of the same type of impacted habitat within an existing, planned or potential conservation area. Further, consistency with General Plan Resource Element Goal 4, Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.1, requires permanent conservation of the Mojave River and riparian corridor, which provides suitable habitat for Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
sensitive plant species, and this goal generally prohibits private or public development projects within the Mojave River corridor.
Development consistent with the project in the urban/developed land that occurs in the Planning Area would be less likely to result in impacts to sensitive plant species because these areas have been previously disturbed and do not contain suitable habitat for sensitive plant species.
Therefore, c ompliance with the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources would reduce impacts to sensitive plant species to less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
As discussed above, although the Planning Area consists primarily of developed land, large areas of native habitat, including the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor, scrub, grassland , and woodland, occur around the ed ges and in the north -central portion of the Planning Area that can support sens itive wildlife species (Figure 3.2 -1). Further, critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher occurs along the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor that runs through the northern and northeastern portions of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-4). Thirty-five sensitive wildlife species are either known to occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area. Development consistent with the project could result in significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
As discussed above, development projects in the Planning Area are required, as a condition of approval, to comply with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources (City of Victorville 2008). Specific to sensitive wildlife species, the project would comply with Resource Element Goal 4, Conservation of Important Habitat, which prioritizes the preserv ation of natural communities that supports rare, threatened , or endangered wildlife species and requires biological surveys and assessments of impacts to biological resources for new “greenfield” projects, as part of the City ’s CEQA implementation procedures. Under General Plan Resource Element Goal 4, Policy 4.1.1, projects that would impact sensitive wildlife species habitat would be required to provide restoration of the same type of impacted habitat within an existing, planned , or potential conservation area. Further, consistency with General Plan Resource Element Goal 4, Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.1, requires permanent conservation of the Mojave River and riparian corridor, which provides suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species, and this goal generally prohibits private or public development projects within the Mojave River corridor.
Projects approved in the Planning Area would also be required to comply with General Plan Resource Element Goal 4, Policy 4.1.2, which requires consistency with th e WMP responsibility measures for sensitive wildlife species that occur or have some potential to occur within the Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
vicinity of the Planning Area (BLM 2004). WMP measures applicable to the Planning Area include those for burrowing owl (surveys, relocation, and reporting), desert tortoise (conservation strategy), Ferruginous hawk (raptor -safe infrastructure), Mojave ground squirrel (conservation strategy), the 10 Mojave River bioregion species (ground water and habitat conservation), and prairie falcon (nest avoidance and noise restrictions).
Development associated with the project in the urban/developed land that occurs in the Planning Area would be less likely to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species because these areas have been previously disturbed and do not contain suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species.
Therefore, compliance with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources and the WMP responsibility measures for sensitive wildlife species would reduce impacts to sensitive wildlife species to less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required.
Nesting Birds
Implementation of projects in the Planning Area would have the potential to impact nesting birds.
Activities such as vegetation clearing, grubbing, or trimming could potentially harm active nesting birds. In addition to vegetation disturbance, impacts to nesting birds may include noise and other disturbances due to the proximity of construction activities. Construction activities conducted during the general bird and raptor breeding season (typically January 15 through September 15) could directly or indirectly impact nesting birds and raptors. Implementation of the project would result in potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds and raptors.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project could have potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds and raptors.
Mitigation Measures
Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permits for proposed projects in the City, the following biological resources mitigation measures shall be implemented by project applicants as conditions of approval.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would require pre -construction nesting bird and raptor surveys for projects in the Planning Area that contain or are adjacent to mature trees, are within or adjacent to undeveloped land and/or open space in the Planning Area, and would remove trees or vegetation to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors protected by the California Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
BIO-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird and Raptor Surveys. To the extent feasible, grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation from the Planning Area shall not occur Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
during the general bird and raptor nesting season (January 15 through September 15).
If grubbing, trimming, or clearing of vegetation cannot feasibly occur outside the general bird and raptor nesting season, a qualified biologist shall perform a pre - construction nesting bird and raptor survey in sites in the Planning Area with vegetation supporting nesting birds and raptors. Nesting bird and raptor surveys shall occur within 10 days before the start of vegetation clearing or grubbing to determine if active bird nests are present. If no acti ve bird nests are identified on a site or within a 300 -foot buffer of the site, no further mitigation is necessary. If active nests of bird species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are detected on sites in the Planning Area during the 10-day pre-construction survey, construction activities shall stay outside a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor 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 construction activity. Once the young have fledged and a qualified biologist has determined the nest is inactive, normal construction activities can occur.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to sensitive nesting birds and raptors would be reduced to less than significant.
3.2.4.2 Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.2.4.1, although the Planning Area consists primarily of developed land, large areas of sensitive vegetation communities, including the Mojave River and surrounding riparian corridor, scrub, grassland, and woodland, occur around the edges and in the north-central portion of the Planning Area (Figure 3.2-1).
As discussed in Section 3.2.4.1 , development projects in the Planning Area are required, as a condition of approval, to comply with the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources (City of Victorville 2008). Specific to sensitive vegetation communities, the project would comply with Goal 4, Conservation of Important Habitat, which prioritizes the preservation of natural communities and requires biological surveys and assessments of impacts to biological resources for new “greenfield” projects, as part of the City’s CEQA implementation procedures. Under General Plan Goal 4, projects that would impact sensitive vegetation communities would be required to provide restoration of the same type of impacted habitat within an existing, planned or potential conservation area. Further, consistency with General Plan Goal 4 requires permanent conservation of the Mojave River and ripa rian corridor, which generally prohibits private or public development projects within the Mojave River Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
corridor. Development associated with the project in the urban/developed land that occurs in the Planning Area would be less likely to result in impacts to sensitive vegetation communities because these areas have been previously disturbed and do not contain sensitive vegetation communities. Therefore, compliance with the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources would reduce impacts to less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would have less than significant impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation
Because no mitigation measures are required, impacts would remain less than significant.
3.2.4.3 Threshold 3: Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Impact Analysis
As discussed in Sections 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2, development projects in the Planning Area are required, as a condition of approval, to comply with the Victorville General Plan 2030 goals, objectives, and policies related to biological resources (City of Victorville 2008). Specific to jurisdictional aquatic resources, the project would comply with General Plan Goal 4, Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.1, which requires permanent conservation of the Mojave River and riparian corridor, and this goal generally prohibits private or public development proj ects within the Mojave River corridor. While it is unlikely that the Mojave River and riparian corridor would be impacted by development, an aquatic resources delineation was not conducted. Potential impacts to state or federal jurisdictional aquatic resou rces would be considered significant and require consultation with and permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. An aquatic resources delineation would be required for any impacts to potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources.
Implementation of the project within or adjacent to the Mojave River and riparian corridor or any other potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources could result in significant direct and/or indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, and mitigation is required.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project could have potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
In the event that state - or federally protected jurisdictional aquatic resources are identifie d on project sites in the Planning Area and cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measures BIO -2 and BIO-3 shall be implemented.
BIO-2: Aquatic Resources Delineation. Future projects within or adjacent to the Mojave River or other aquatic resources that have the potential to impact sensitive aquatic resources shall be required to conduct an aquatic resources delineation following the methods outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Co rps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region to map the extent of wetlands and non-wetland waters, determine jurisdiction, and assess potential impacts. The aquatic resources shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The results of the delineation shall be presented in an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report and be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act documents required for approval and permitting of the proposed project.
BIO-3: Aquatic Resources Permitting. Future projects within or adjacent to Mojave River or other aquatic resources that have been determined through Mitigation Measure BIO- 2 to have a significant impact to sensitive aquatic resources shall obtain required permits and authorizations from the U.S. Ar my Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The regulatory agency authorizations shall include impact avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures for unavoidable impa cts. Specific avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be determined through discussions with the regulatory agencies during the proposed project permitting process and may include monetary c ontributions to a mitigation bank or habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be reduced to less than significant.
3.2.4.4 Threshold 4: Wildlife Corridors, Habitat Linkages, and Nursery Sites Impact Analysis
The majority of the Planning Area is not likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor because it is primarily made up of urban/developed land. However, the swaths of native habitat around the edges and running through the north -central portion of the Planning Area provide connections to the open space areas within and surrounding the Planning Area that provide local and regi onal Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-21 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
movement for both common and sensitive wildlife species. Further, the Mojave River and riparian corridor that runs through the northern and northeastern portion of the Planning Area provides a flyway stopover for migratory birds and raptors and functions as an important wildlife habitat and movement corridor connecting the open spaces within and outside of the Planning Area.
Although development outside of the urban/developed land in the Planning Area would be limited, some new development in undevelop ed areas or around the edges of the Planning Area could occur. New development, particularly in the northern, northeastern, and southeastern portions of the Planning Area adjacent to existing open space, have the potential to impede wildlife movement.
Habitats that support sensitive plant and wildlife species include habitats that provide nursery sites.
Although development in the urban/developed areas within the Planning Area generally would not result in the removal of natural habitat, future development has the potential to remove trees or other vegetation that provides nursery sites to wildlife, particularly birds. Therefore, implementation of projects that would remove trees or vegetation in the Planning Area would result in potentially significant dire ct and indirect impacts to bird and raptor nursery sites, and mitigation is required.
As discussed in Sections 3.2.4.1 through 3.2.4.3, projects in the Planning Area would require subsequent CEQA review for any adverse impacts to wildlife corridors or nurs ery sites. In addition, development projects in the Planning Area would be required to comply with existing regulations and Victorville General Plan 2030 goals, policies, and ordinances, which are intended to protect wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites by protecting large areas of habitat, particularly the Mojave River and riparian corridor. General Plan Goal 4 requires biological resource surveys and mitigation for impacts to sensitive biological resources, including sensitive vegetation communit ies that function as nursery sites for sensitive wildlife species. These measures required by the General Plan and a condition of approval for projects in the Planning Area would protect nursery sites and avoid fragmentation of wildlife movement corridors.
Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to bird and raptor nursery sites. Implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact to wildlife corridors.
Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-22 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to bird and raptor nursery sites would be reduced to less than significant.
3.2.4.5 Threshold 5: Local Policies or Ordinances
Impact Analysis
Development in the Planning Area is required to comply with goals, policies, and objectives protecting biological resources identified in the Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan 2030 (City of Victorville 2008). Further, the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element Goal 4, Policy 4.1.2, requires consistency with the WMP responsibility measures for sensitive wildlife species that occur or have some potential to occur within the vicinity of the Planning Area (BLM 2004).
As discussed in Secti ons 3.2.4.1, 3.2.4.2, and 3.2.4.4 , potential impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, and wildlife nursery sites, corridors, and habitat linkages from future projects in the Planning Area would be avoided or reduce d to less than significant through consistency with the Victorville General Plan 2030 and WMP. Therefore, projects in the Planning Area would not conflict with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Goal 4, Objectives 4.1 and 4.2, Policies 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.2 .1, regarding the preservation of open spaces and biological resources in the Planning Area.
As discussed in Sections 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.4, potential impacts to nesting birds and jurisdictional aquatic resources would be potentially significant before incor poration of mitigation. With implementation of mitigation measures for sensitive nesting birds and jurisdictional aquatic resources, the project would not conflict with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Goal 4, Objectives
4.1 and 4.2, Policies 4.1.1, 4.1.2 , and 4.2.1, regarding the preservation of open spaces and biological resources in the Planning Area.
As discussed in Section 3.2.4.3, future projects in the planning area would avoid or, if avoidance is not feasible, fully mitigate potential impacts to ju risdictional aquatic resources, thereby complying with the General Plan Goal 4, Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.1, which requires permanent conservation of the Mojave River and riparian corridor.
No impacts related to conflicts with applicable policies or ord inances protecting biological resources would occur from implementation of the project.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would have less than significant impacts from conflicts with local policies or ordinances.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation
Because no mitigation measures are required, impacts would remain less than significant.
3.2.4.6 Threshold 6: Regional Conservation Planning
Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.2.2 , the Planning Area is within the W MPA and is subject to the requirements and conservation responsibilities outlined in the plan. Further, the Victorville General Plan 2030 requires consistency with the WMP for all projects in the Planning Area as a condition of approval. Therefore, no impacts to local conservation plans would occur from the implementation of the project.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would have less than significant impacts from conflicts with regional conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation
Because no mitigation measures are required, impacts would remain less than significant.
3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential cumulative impacts relat ing to biological resources that could result from implementation of the project.
3.2.5.1 Cumulative Threshold 1: Candidate, Sensitive, or Special- Status Species
The area considered for cumulative impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species includes the City, sphere of influence ( SOI), and immediately surrounding lands and waterways. Cumulative development in combination with the projects in the Planning Area may impact sensitive plant and wildlife species, including nesting birds and raptors . Implementation of future projects in the Planning Area could change density and intensity of existing land uses. However, all projects, approved in the City’s jurisdiction are required to be consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, policies, and objectives (City of Victorville 2008) , Victorville land use and development ordinances , and WMP . Furthermore, impacts to sensitive plant species would be less than significant and impacts to sensitive wildlife Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
species, specifically nesting birds and raptors, associated with future development in the Planning Area would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would have incremental contribution to cumulative impacts a ssociated with sensitive plant and wildlife species, and impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.2.5.2 Cumulative Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities
The area considered for cumulative impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities includes the City, SOI, and immediately surrounding lands and waterways.
Cumulative development in co mbination with the projects in the Planning Area may impact riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Implementation of future projects in the Planning Area could change density and intensity of existing land uses. However, all projects, approved in the City’s jurisdiction are required to be consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, policies, and objectives (City of Victorville 2008) , Victorville land use and development ordinances , a nd WMP . Furthermore, impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities associated with future development in the Planning Area would be less than significant. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would have incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.2.5.3 Cumulative Threshold 3: Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources The area considered for cumulative impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources includes the City, SOI, and immediately surrounding lands and waterways. Cumulative development in combination with the projects in the Planning Area may impact jurisdictional aquatic resources. Implementation of future projects in the Planning Area could change density and intensity of existing land uses.
However, all projects, a pproved in the City ’s jurisdiction are required to be consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, policies, and objectives (City of Victorville 2008), Victorville land use and development ordinances, and WMP.
Furthermore, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources associated with future development in the Planning Area would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would have incremental contr ibution to cumulative impacts associated with jurisdictional aquatic resources , and impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-25 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.2.5.4 Cumulative Threshold 4: Wildlife Corridors, Habitat Linkages, and Nursery Sites
The area considered for cumulative impacts to wildlife corridors, habitat linkages and nursery sites includes the City, SOI, and immediately surrounding lands and waterways. Cumulative development in combination with the projects in the Planning Area may impact wildlife corridors, habitat linkages and nursery sites . Implementation of future projects in th e Planning Area could change density and intensity of existing land uses. However, all projects, approved in the City ’s jurisdiction are required to be consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, poli cies, and objectives (City of Victorville 2008) , Victorville land use and development ordinances , and WMP . Furthermore, impacts to wildlife corridors, habitat linkages and nursery sites associated with future development in the Planning Area would be less than significant. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would have incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with wildlife corridors, habitat linkages and nursery sites, and impacts to wildlife corridors, habitat linkages and nursery sites would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.2.5.5 Cumulative Threshold 5: Local Policies or Ordinances The area considered for cumulative impacts from conflicts with local policies and ordinances includes the City and SOI. Cumulative development in combination with the projects in the Planning Area may result in impact from conflicts with local policies and ordinances .
Implementation of future projects in the Planning Area c ould change density and intensity of existing land uses. However, all projects, approved in the City ’s jurisdiction are required to be consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, policies, and objecti ves (City of Victorville 2008) , Victorville land use and development ordinances, and WMP . Furthermore, impacts from conflicts with local policies and ordinances associated with future development in the Planning Area would not occur. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with conflicts with local policies and ordinances, and impacts from conflicts with local policies and ordinances would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would b e less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.2.5.6 Cumulative Threshold 6: Regional Conservation Planning The area considered for cumulative impacts from conflicts with regional conservation planning includes the area covered by the WMP. Cumulative development in combination with the projects in the Planning Area may result in impact from conflicts with regional conservation plans .
Implementation of future projects in the Planning Area could change density and intensity of existing land uses. However, all projects, approved in the City ’s jurisdiction are required to be Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-26 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
consistent with the Victorville General Plan 2030 Resource Element biological and open space goals, policies, and objectives (City of Victorville 2008) , Victorville land use and developme nt ordinances, and WMP . Furthermore, impacts from conflicts with regional conservation plans associated with future development in the Planning Area would not occur. Therefore, the projects in the Planning Area would not contribute to cumulative impacts as sociated with conflicts with regional conservation planning, and impacts from conflicts with regional conservation plans would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Date: 7/27/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section3_2\Figure3_2_1_Vegetation.mxd UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Vegetation Communities
and Land Cover Types
Alkali Desert Scrub
Annual Grassland
Barren
Deciduous Orchard, Vineyard
Desert Riparian
Desert Scrub
Desert Scrub, Desert Wash
Desert Wash
Fresh Emergent Wetland
Irrigated Row and Field Crops
Joshua Tree
Lacustrine
Riverine
Sagebrush
Urban
Valley Foothill Riparian
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Source: CDFW 2011; ESRI 2021
Figure 3.2-1
±
0 21
Miles
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-28 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 7/27/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section3_2\Figure3_2_2_AquaticResources.mxd M
ojave River
UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Aquatic Feature Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Aquatic Resources
Source: USFWS National Wetland Inventory 2022; ESRI 2021 Figure 3.2-2
±
0 21
Miles
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-30 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 7/27/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section3_2\Figure3_2_3_SensitiveSpeciesPTO.mxd XW
XW
XWXW
XWXW
XWXW
XW
XWXWXWXW
XW
XWXWXWXW
XWXW
d
XW
!(
XW
XW
^_
$1$1$1
$1#0 XWXWXW#0XW$1#0
d
^_!(
")
#0
$1")XW
#0
$1
$1!(
$1
$1
#0
#0
XWXW
XW
")
d
d
d
XW
^_
XW
XW$1
")
XW #0
d
$1
d
XW
XW
XWXWXWXW
#0
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XWXW
XW
$1
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
XW
XW
$1
XWXW
ddd
d
XW
XW
XW
XWXW
#0#0
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
d
")
XW
d
XW
")d
XW
d
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
$1
XW
XW
#0
XW
XW
XW
XW
$1
XW
XW XW
XW
#0
d
XW
d
XW
XW
XW
^_
UV173
UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
1-Mile Buffer
Amphibian Species
!( Arroyo Toad
!( California Red-Legged Frog
Bird Species
XW Burrowing Owl
XW Cooper's Hawk
XW Golden Eagle
XW Least Bell's Vireo
XW Le Conte's Thrasher
XW Loggerhead Shrike
XW Prairie Falcon
XW Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
XW Summer Tanager
XW Swainson's Hawk
XW Tricolored Blackbird
XW Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
XW Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
XW Yellow-Breasted Chat
XW Yellow Warbler
Fish Species
^_ Mojave Tui Chub
Invertebrate Species
") San Emigdio Blue Butterfly
") Victorville Shoulderband
Mammal Species
$1 Mojave Ground Squirrel
$1 Mojave River Vole
$1 Pallid Bat
$1 Pallid San Diego Pocket Mouse
$1 Townsend's Big-Eared Bat
Plant Species
#0 Beaver Dam Breadroot
#0 Booth's Evening-Primrose
#0 Mojave Monkeyflower
#0 Sagebrush Loeflingia
#0 San Bernardino Aster
#0 Southern Mountains Skullcap
#0 White Pygmy-Poppy
Reptile Species
d Blainville's Horned Lizard
d Mojave Desert Tortoise
d Western Pond Turtle
Sensitive Species Potential to Occur
Source: CNDDB 2022; ESRI 2021
Figure 3.2-3
±
0 21
Miles
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-32 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 7/27/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section3_2\Figure3_2_4_CriticalHabitat.mxd UV138
UV173
UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Critical Habitat
Arroyo Toad
Desert Tortoise
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Critical Habitat
Source: USFWS 1994, 2011, 2013; ESRI 2021
Figure 3.2-4
±
0 42
Miles
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
Draft PEIR 3.2-34 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project) and identifies known and potential cultural resources and TCRs within the City and its sphere of influence, referred to as the Planning Area. The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Technical Report for the City of Victorville General Plan Update Environmental Assessment prepared by Red Tail Environmental (2022) (Appendix D).
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.1.1 Prehistoric Period
While no single arc haeological chronology is agreed upon, archaeologists generally concur that human occupation within Southern California spans at least the last 14,000 years. The City has previously identified five prehistoric periods within the Mojave Desert that have bee n identified by changes in the archaeological remains: The Lake Mohave Period, the Pinto Period, the Gypsum Period, the Saratoga Springs Period and Proto-historic Period (City of Victorville 2008).
Paleo-Indian/Lake Mohave Period (12,000 Years to 7,000 Years Ago) As in most of North America, the Paleo -Indian Period is the earliest recognized period of California prehistory and coincides with the end of the late Pleistocene, circa 11,000 to 13,000 years before present. The environment was cool and moist, wit h deep pluvial lakes in the desert and basin lands. However, by the end of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, causing glaciers to melt and the sea level to rise. Inland lakes began to recede and evaporate, and a great deal of erosion occurred in the coastal areas. The warmer climate also resulted in major vegetation changes and the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna (Appendix D).
Paleo-Indian sites have been identified across most of North America, often referred to as the “Clovis Complex.” The Clovis Complex is defined by the use of large fluted projectile points and other large bifacial stone tools. In Southern California and the Colorado Desert, the Clovis Complex is referred to as the “Western Stemmed Point Tradition” and is characterized by leaf-shaped and large-stemmed projectile points, scrapers, and other stone tools. Overall, ground stone use was infrequent during this period, leading to the belief that people during this period were highly mobile groups and their subsistence practices focused on the hunting of large game. Sites during this period within the region are rare and the absence of house remains suggests that people during this period were highly mobile, centered around permanent water sources, and left few archaeological traces.
There was a greater concentration of archaeological sites near the coast and along the Colorado River floodplain during this period. Human occupation during this period was focused around the Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
eastern Colorado Desert , and the surrounding desert areas were used as special resource procurement and foraging areas but could not sustain long-term use (Appendix D).
Pinto Period (7,000 Years to 4,000 Years Ago)
The Pinto Period marks the archaeological complex following the disappearance of the Pleistocene Lakes, during the Middle Holocene, and the increasing aridity of the region. Archaeological sites from this period have a much more diverse artifact assemblage than the Lake Mojave Period and consist of Pinto projectile poin ts, leaf-shaped points and knives, domed and elongated scrapers, flake scrapers, drills, engraving tools, and milling equipment. In addition, lithic sources have a lack of diversity, showing less distance traveled and/or less trading than the Lake Mojave P eriod (Appendix D).
Archaeological sites from the Pinto Period have been found along pluvial lake basins, stream channels, springs, and upland areas and archaeological evidence shows that sites were occupied for long periods by fairly large groups. Some sites have been identified as residential centers from which trips to gather from different resource locations were undertaken, based on the higher presence of milling tools at the residential centers (Appendix D).
Gypsum Period (4,000 Years to 1,500 Years Ago)
The Gypsum Period, also called the Elko Period, spanned the cooler, wetter Late Holocene Period and extended as the region again became warmer and drier. While Gypsum Period sites are found frequently in the northern Mojave Desert, few have been identi fied on its southern and eastern portions (Appendix D).
Artifacts that define this period include medium to large -stemmed and notched projectile points, such as Elko Eared, Elko Corner-notched, Gypsum Cave, and Humboldt Concave Base points; an increase in ritual items such as quartz crystals, paint, and rock art ; and an increase in bifaces and grinding implements (Appendix D).
Archaeological evidence has identified an approximately 1,000-year hiatus between the Pinto and Gypsum Periods. Little is known about why the population would have dropped during this period, but the dramatic drop in population between the periods is used to define the periods.
Subsequently, during the end of the Gypsum Period a population increase has been noted (Appendix D).
Saratoga Springs Period (1,500 Years to 800 Years Ago)
The Saratoga Springs Period has been referred to as the Rose Spring Period and the Amargosa Period. During this period the lake stands within the region were again high and sustenance focused on lacustrine resources (Appendix D). Archaeological sites from this period are found in a larger number of environmental zones and geographic areas, including rock shelters, springs, colluvial fans, Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
drainages, lakeshores, creek junctures streams , and mountain ranges. Artifacts from this period focused on projectile points, knives, drills, stone pipes, bone awls, a wide variety of milling equipment, marine shell artifacts, and large quantities of obsidian for lithic tools. During this period, use of the bow and arrow spread across the region. There is strong evidence for the use of structures.
Pro-Historic Period (800 Years Ago to European Contact) There are differing opinions between researchers as to whether the shift to the Proto -Historic Period was caused by new technologies developed by people already living in the area, spurred by changing environmental conditions, or if it was brought in by a migration of people into Southern California. Either way the transition into the Proto-Historic Period within the region is associated with more specific regional developments across the Mojave Desert. Environmental conditions varied and along the Colorado River, within portions of the eastern Mojave Desert, agriculture became established. Archaeological s ites during this period represent a variety of site types including major villages with associated cemeteries, along with special purpose and seasonal sites (Appendix D).
The Proto-Historic Period, is also referred to as the Late Prehistoric Period and is through to be a continuation of the peoples living in the region during the beginning of the Ethnographic and Historic Periods. This period is marked by a change in subsistence and settlement, likely resulting from an increasing aridity of the region. Settlements are concentrated along springs, streams, and wells, including both residential centers, major villages, and seasonal sites used for procuring specific resources only. It is unknown if the lower population seen during this period was a reaction to t he environmental changes or possibly the result of European introduced diseases and the removal of Native American people to the mission system (Appendix D).
Archaeological evidence within the vicinity of Victorville, during this period has been identified at the Oro Grande site (SBR -72), located several miles north of the City. This site was first occupied ca. 6,000 years ago, then it was abandoned and reinhabited ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1500.
Also, the Deep Creek Site, SBR- 176, located near the confluence of the Mojave River and Deep Creek, to the south of the City, was dated to the Proto-Historic Period and contained a stone floor, several house pits, a rock cluster, and a large lithic assemblage (Appendix D).
3.3.1.2 Ethnohistoric Period
Ethnographic sources for the region are sparse and report that several different Native American groups were present within the region. Sutton et al. (2007) states that the Mojave River was an important boundary between Numic and Takic groups during the Proto-Historic and Ethnographic Periods. Ethnographic accounts within the vicinity of Victorville focus on the Vanyumé, or Desert Serrano, and the Chemehuevi. Other groups with traditional territories within the region and who may have used the Planning Area or the vicinity include t he Kitanemuk and the Kawaiisu (Appendix D).
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Vanyumé, or Desert Serrano
By the Ethnohistoric Period, the Vanyumé, or Desert Serrano, occupied the length of the Mojave River and adjacent areas from Victorville and Hesperia to east of Barstow. The Vanyumé were the desert division of the Serrano, differing from other Tribes in San Bernardino County (County) by their adaptation to the harsh desert climate. The Kitanemuk and Serrano were affiliated with the Vanyumé, although the boundaries between these Tribes are not clearly understood (Appendix D).
The Vanyumé, like most other desert Tribes, settled near sources of water to maximize available resources. The Mojave River was a major trade route that linked the southern San Joaquin Valley and Southern California c oast with the Southwest and the Colorado River. It is likely the exploitation of salt sources contributed to the Vanyumé occupation of the lower Mojave River.
There was significant demand for salt in native communities in the San Bernardino Mountains.
The benefits of this long -distance exchange route likely helped support Vanyumé occupation of the river.
Chemehuevi
The Chemehuevi were encountered by the early Spanish explorers from the late 1700s through the early 1800s within various locations the region. The Chemehuevi territory was estimated about 9,000 square miles, one of the largest in California, most of which was resource poor and ranged from Soda Lake to the Avawatz, Providence and Kingston Mountain Ranges to Death Valley, Tehachapi, and south to the San Bernardino Mountains. The boundary between t he Chemehuevi and the Serrano has been ill -defined and may have overlapped. The traditional Chemehuevi territory was greatly impacted by European encroachment and violence, and many were displaced by the time ethnographic accounts were recorded. The Chemehuevi Indians were thought to be the southernmost branch of the Southern Paiute Nation. They referred to themselves as the Nuwuvi, meaning “people” (Appendix D).
3.3.1.3 Historic Period
Post-contact history for the State of California is generally divided into three specific periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1821), the Mexican Period (1821–1848), and the American Period (1848–present).
Spanish Period (ca. 1769–1821)
Along the coast of California, Spanish explorers began making expeditions between the mid-1500s and 1700s. Juan Rodríguez Cabríllo, a Portuguese in Spanish service, explored Catalina Island and the San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays and also stopped in 1542 at present day San Diego Bay.
Sebastián Vizcaíno, a Spanish naval officer, spent much of the late 1500 s mapping the coast of California north into Oregon. The Spanish crown laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Appendix D). While none of these expeditions may have had Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
direct contact with the vicinity of the Planning Area, it is likely that Old World diseases and other indirect impacts reached the Native Americans living in the Planning Area.
The Colorado Desert region first came to the attention of Europeans in 1539–1540, when Francisco de Ulloa reached the northe rn limit of the Gulf of California, Hernando de Alarcón sailed up the lower Colorado River at least as far as present day Yuma, and Melchior Díaz traveled overland from Sonora to reach and cross the river. The portions of the desert west of the Colorado Ri ver were first visited only as late as the 1770s, when Juan Bautista de Anza and Francisco Garcés pioneered a route from the Colorado River to coastal Southern California. The Spanish attempted to establish two missions within the Colorado River region; however, both were destroyed by the Quechan in 1781 . This began a war between the Spaniards and the Quechan, which ended the Spanish attempt to develop an overland route to Alta California (Appendix D).
Mexican Period (1821–1848)
After years of sporadic rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821, marking the beginning of the Mexican Period. As the ports in California were opened to foreign ships, the populations near the coast grew. However, the inland valleys and desert remained largely vacant of European settlers except for use as grazing lands for cattle.
In 1825, the Mexican government again attempted to create an overland route through the vicinity of the Planning Area, and they established a fort, known as “Laguna Chapala,” west of the City of El Centro (City) near the current town of Westmoreland. The fort was again attacked, and the Mexican soldiers withdrew to San Diego. The Mexican government secularized the California missions in 183 3, and much of the mission lands were included in the land grants. After the secularization of the mission system, many neophytes escaped to the desert. Otherwise, the vicinity of the Planning Area remained desolate and isolated (Appendix D).
3.3.1.4 American Period (1848–Present)
State of California
The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ended the Mexican American War and marks the beginning of the American Period, when California became a territory of the United States. California became the 31st state in 1850 and within 3 years the population of California had increased to more than 300,000.
John Fremont was the next American to travel through the Mojave Desert, several times in the 1840s and 1850s, generally following trails and routes utilized by Native American groups. Travel across the Mojave Desert grew exponentially during the gold rush. Eventually mining began in the Mojave Desert as well.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Large deposits of gold, silver, tin, lead, copper, antimony, zinc, tungsten, sand, salt, borax, iron , and others have been found in the region. Infrastructure and additional development quickly followed mining, providing transportation, lodging, and supplies for the workers. During this period the Mojave Road was further developed to allow for supply wagons and postal services and military presence. Later the Mormon Trail or Salt Lake Trail also followed the alignment of the Old Spanish Trail and Mojave Road. By the mid- 1850s there was regular mail service along what was now known as the Salt Lake Road (Appendix D).
Prior to December 1858 , the first Euro -American settlement had been developed within the Planning Area, as Captain Aaron Lane settled along the Mojave River. By 1860 , census records showed there were at least 10 people and two residences at what became known as Lane’s Crossing (Appendix D).
It was originally known as Mormon Crossing, then Huntington Station, when it became a railroad stop the name was changed to Victor in honor of California Southern Railroad ’s construction superintendent Jacob Nash Victor, circa 1885. Jacob Nash Victor was a construction superintendent for the California Southern Railroad. The original settlement was established around the railroad sta tion, which was located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Mojave Narrow Regional Park.
The first transcontinental railroad reached the region in 1883 built by the California Southern Railroad (later Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway) under the supervision of L. N. Victor, the line reached the Atlantic & Pacific junction at Barstow/Daggett in 1885. Numerous spur tracks were developed following the railroad line to support mining across the desert.
City of Victorville
By 1901 the area was referred to as Victorville and the several residents had begun agricultural production (City of Victorville 2008). Shortly large deposits of limestone and granite were discovered in the vicinity which brough t cement manufacturing to the area. Further development followed with the establishment of Route 66 through the City.
Within the region population grew during the first few decades of the 1900s as agriculture, ranching, and mining expanded. Also, within the early 1900s, the Victor Valley became known as Hollywood’s Hideaway, used in silent films through today, as movie stars used to stay in nearby ranches, especially Verde Ranch.
Besides mining and ranching development within the region was slow. However, Victorville became a major stop along Route 66, bringing addit ional development, infrastructure, and residents to the City. The first section of Route 66 was paved between 1913 and 1915 and was located between Los Angeles and the Cajon Summit. The segment of Route 66 between the Cajon Summit and Victorville was paved in 1920, and Victorville to Needles was paved in 1926. Several Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
tourist associations remain from the previous importance of Route 66 through Victorville.
Rockfield Bridge, between Oro Grande and Victorville, opened in February 1931, crossing the Mojave River at one of the only locations it flows above ground year-round.
The bridge was bypassed in 1972. The California Route 66 Museum, located in the City’s first bank building, was built in 1918. Several motels and café associated with Route 66 were opened during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s (Appendix D).
During World War II , use of the Victor Valley greatly expanded , and the Victorville Army Airfield, later renamed George Air Force Base, was constructed. The base was established in June 1941 and, at its peak capacity, employed approximately 6,000 civilian and military personnel. The base was deactivated on December 15, 1992 , and on July 21, 1993, it was annexed into the City and has since been developed as the Southern California Logistics Airport. Victorville was incorporated on September 21, 1962, with a population of 8,111. By 1995 the City limits have expanded to 67.88 square miles with a population of 60,648.
3.3.1.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are districts, buildings, sites, structures, areas of traditional use, or objects that represent the physical evidence of human activities. Cultural resources can be divided into two categories: archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) and built environment resources (architectural). A record search of th e California Historical Resources Inventory System held by the South Central Coast Information Center was conducted on January 26, 2022. The record search identified 365 previously recorded cultural resources in the City. A complete list of the previously recorded cultural resources can be found in Appendix D. The 365 resources included 119 prehistoric resources, 216 historic resources, and 11 multicomponent resources, whi ch contain both prehistoric and historic elements. Nineteen site records were unknown resources, as the records were incomplete and did not contain descriptions of the recorded resources.
3.3.1.6 Built Environmental Resources
A record search of the California Historical Resources Inventory System held by the South Coastal Information Center was completed for the built environmental resources in the City. No historic addresses were available.
Federal
The Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) held by the California Office of Historic Preservation identifies resources that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or have been evaluated for eligibility. The BERD provides information, organi zed by county, regarding non -archaeological resources that have been processed through the California Office of Historic Preservation. The list identified 29 Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
resources within the City. The complete list can be found in Appendix D. Six resources (P -36- 002910, U.S. Highway 66; P -36-004411, The Mormon Trail/Mormon Road; P -36-004272, Old Spanish Trail; P -36-018738, U.S. Highway 66; Alert Road; and 13746 Alert Road) have been listed or recommended eligible to be listed on the NRHP or the CRHR.
State
A review of California Historical Resources List held by the California Office of Historic Preservation includes resources that are listed on the NRHP or CRHR or listed as a State of California Landmark or Point of Interest. The list identified the following four reso urces in the City. These include U.S. Highway 66, the Old Spanish Trail, the Mormon Trail or Mormon Road, and the Site of Hula Ville.
Local
The City of Victorville ’s Old Town Specific Plan identified nine previously recorded historical/archaeological sites in the Planning Area which have been previously evaluated and determined eligible for listing on the NRHP (City of Victorville 2008).
The Victorville Chamber of Commerce previously designated 17 sites in the downtown area as “points of local historical interest ” (City of Victorville 2008). The sites are present ed as a concentration of early 20th century buildings, both residential and commercial, in the downtown area around Victorville’s traditional town center, including A through E Streets, 1st through 11th Streets, and southwest from A Street along 6th Street, 7th Street, Yucca Avenue, and Forrest Avenue.
3.3.1.7 Tribal Cultural Resources
TCRs are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects” that are of cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that are either on or determined eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or a local register of historical resources. In addition, a resource determined by a lead agency, at its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant under the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the California Public Resource Code, Section 5024.1, is a TCR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21074).
A record search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) held by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was requested on December 6, 2020. On December 21, 2020, NAHC responded that the record search of the SLF was positive and recommended that the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians be contacted for additional information, in addition to eight other tribal organizations and individuals. On December 23, 2020, letters were sent to the 10 Native American tribal organizations and individuals requesting any information they may have Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
on cultural resources in the Planning Area. The contacts provided by the NAHC are from the following 10 Native American groups:
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Charles Wood, Chairperson
Kern Valley Indian Community, Robert Robinson, Chairperson Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin, Chairperson Quechan Tribe of the For Yuma Reservation, Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, Donna Yocum, Chairperson San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Robert L. Gomez, Chairperson Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, Darrell Mike, Chairperson On December 23, 2020, Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, responded via email that they do not wish to comment on the project, and defer to more local Tribes.
On December 28, 2020, Mr. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), responded that the Planning Area contains several tribal resource loci, mostly distributed on both sides of the Desert Knolls Wash, the Lower Slough, and the Mojave Narrows Regional Park shorelines. These loci are composed of lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, bedrock milling features, petroglyphs, cairns, pictographs, trai ls/linear earthworks, and rock shelters. These sites surround a known village site, Patkaits. Also butting against the Rockview Nature Park are a great number of archaeological sites surrounding the Serrano ancestral village of Topipabit. These sites have the same components as those surrounding Patkaits. An additional series of sites exist east of Mesa Linda Avenue, west of Amargosa Road, south of Hopland Street, and north of Palmdale Road. The Planning Area is of great concern to SMBMI, and they are very interested in consulting whenever this project moves forward.
On July 22, 2021 and August 9, 2021 all Tribes requesting notice pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) as well as those included on the list provided by the NAHC pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) were sent letters regarding opportunity for consultation for the Housing Element update portion of this General Plan Update. On August 31, 2022, the Tribes were sent additional letters requesting consultation for the proposed project in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18.
To date no additional responses have been received. All correspondence pertaining to the NAHC is included in Appendix D.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.3.2 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address cultural resources and TCRs.
3.3.2.1 Federal
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et seq.) protects human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony of indigenous peoples on federal lands. NAGPRA stipulates priorities for assigning ownership or control of such cultural items excavated or discovered on federal or tribal lands or in the possession and control of an agency that has received federal funding. Thus, NAGPRA may apply to the City if it receives federal funding and takes possession and control of the items described above.
NAGPRA also provides for the repatriation of human remains and associated items previously collected from federal lands and in the possession or control of a federal agency or federally funded repository. Implementing regulations are codified in Title 43, Part 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to defining procedures for dealing with previously collected human remains and associated items, these regulations outline procedures for negotiating plans of action or comprehensive agreements for t reatment of human remains and associated items encountered in intentional excavations or inadvertent discoveries on federal or tribal lands.
American Antiquities Act
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59 -209; 34 Statute 225; 16 USC 431 –433) was the first fede ral law to provide protection of historical and prehistoric resources on federal land. This act prohibits any excavation on public land without permission of the appropriate department secretary. The act authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior, Agricult ure, and Army to grant permission to reputable institutions to conduct research (including excavation) to increase knowledge and the permanent preservation of antiquities in public museums. This act authorizes the President to declare areas of federal land s as national monuments. Preservation of American antiquities (43 CFR Part 3) implements the act, defining jurisdiction over cultural resources on federal land and the permit process for excavations.
National Historic Landmarks Program
The National Histori c Landmarks Program (NHLP) was established to preserve, protect, and maintain U.S. National Historic Landmarks. The NHLP is “a list of nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage” (NPS 2018) of the United States. The difference between Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
the NHLP and the NRHP is that the NHLP contains properties that are important to the entire nation, rather than properties that can be important to local, state, or federal levels.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the NRHP as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. Listing on the NRHP provides recognition that a property is significant to the nation, the state, or the community and requires that federal agencies consider historical values in the planning for federal and federally assisted projects. Properties listed in the NRHP, or “determined eligible” for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 36, Part 63, of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American h istory, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures; and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Eligible properties must m eet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. The fourth criterion is typically reserved for archaeological resources. These criteria have largely been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment ” (36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. In general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must als o possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past; Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or
Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historical integrity, which is defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (NPS 2002).
To assess integrity, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historical integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of the following seven qualities:
1. Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
2. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
3. Setting: The physical environment of a historic property
4. Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
5. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
6. Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
7. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
3.3.2.2 State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 amends CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, to require TCRs to be considered as potentially significant cultural resources. It requires that CEQA lead agencies consult with Tribes that have requested consultation at initiation of the CEQA process to ide ntify and evaluate the significance of these resources.
California Environmental Quality Act and California Register of Historical Resources
CEQA requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA . The act defines historical Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place that is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1[b]).
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be im paired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) is considered to materially impair the resource’s significance. The CRHR is used in the consideration of historical resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The CRHR includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP and some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest.
Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory, may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be sig nificant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Califo rnia Public Resource Code, Section 5024.1; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4852), which consist of the following:
Criteria 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regiona l history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
Criteria 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
Criteria 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or Criteria 4: It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
California State Senate Bill 18
California State Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires local city and county governments to consult with California Native American Tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (cultural places) through local land use planning. SB 18 also requires the Governor ’s Office of Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Planning and Research to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments for how to conduct these consultations.
The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American Tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to cultural places. The purpose of involving Tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy before individual site- specific, project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. SB 18 refers to California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995, to define cultural places as follows:
Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.9) Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is liste d or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic al Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.995) California Public Resource Code, Section 5097.98
In fall 2006, Assembly Bill 2641 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. This bill amended California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, to revise the process for the discovery of Native American remains during land development. The purposes of the revisions are to encourage culturally sensitive treatment of Native American remains and to require meaningful discussions and agreements concerning treatment of the remains at the earliest possible time. The intent is to foster the preservation and avoidance of human remains during development. The law now requires that the following process be followed if human remains are discovered:
A. Whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or their authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
B. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this sectio n, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.
1. The descendant’s preferences for treatment may include the following:
a. The nondestructive removal and analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American human remains.
b. Preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place. c. Relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment.
d. Other culturally appropriate treatment.
2. The parties may also mutually agree to extend discussions, taking into account the possibility that additional or multiple Native American human remains, as defined in this section, are located in the Planning Area providing a basis for additional treatment measures.
C. For the purposes of this section, “conferral” or “discuss and confer” means the meaningful and timely discussion and careful consideration of the views of each party, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties ’ cultural values, and where feasible, seeking agreement. Each party shall recognize the other ’s needs and concerns for confidentiality of information provided to the other.
D. 1. Human remains of a Native American may be an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.
2. Any items associated with human remains that are placed or buried with Native American human remains are to be treated in the same manner as the remains but do not by themselves constitute human remains.
E. Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a descendant, or the descendants identified fail to make a recommendation, or the landowner or their authorized representative, rejects the recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner, or their authorized representative, shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. To protect these sites, that landowner shall do one or more of the following:
1. Record the site with the commission or the appropriate Information Center.
2. Utilize an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement.
3. Record a document with the county in which the property is located.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
F. Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground - disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropria te treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards.
Where the parties are unable to agree on the appropriat e treatment measures the human remains and items buried with Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity, pursuant to subdivision (e).
G. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5097.9, this section, including those actions taken by the landowner, or their authorized representative, to implement this section and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (1) of Section 5097.94 shall be exempt from CEQA (Division 13 [commencing with Section 21000]).
H. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30244. this section, includes those actions taken by the landowner, or their authorized representative, to implement this section, and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to sub division (1) of Section 5097.94 shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 [commencing with Section 30000]).
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, states that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease, and the County Coroner must be notified. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours.
3.3.2.3 Local
Victorville General Plan 2030
City policies and implementation measures pertaining to cultural and TCRs are contained in the Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan. These policies and implementation measures include the following.
Goal 5: Preservation of Important Cultural Resources – Protect identified archaeological, paleontological resources and historic resources within the Planning Area. Objective 5.1: Preserve known and expected cultural resources. Policy 5.1.1: Determine presence/absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources in the review of public and private development and infrastructure projects.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Policy 5.1.2: Prohibit destruction of cultural and paleontological materials that contain information of importance to our knowledge of the evolution of life forms ad history of human settlement in the Planning Area, unless sufficient documentation of that information is accomplished and distributed to the appropriate scientific community. Require mitigation of any significant impacts that may be identified of any significant impacts that may be identified in project or program -level cultural and paleontological assessments as a condition of project or program approval.
Victorville Municipal Code
Section 16-1.02.080, Historic Preservation Commission
Section 16-1.02.080 establishes the City ’s Historic Preservation Commission and empowers its members to establish criteria and standards for survey, protection of resources, maintain a local register of historic landmarks and points of interest, and conduct regular meetings.
Article 17, Historic District
Article 17 of the Victorville Municipal Code allows for the establishment of historic districts to protect sites against destruction or encroachment upon such are as and structures, encourage land uses that promote the preservation and improvement of landmarks and points of interest, maintain consistency with the character of existing structures, promote the educational and economic interests of the entire City, and protect against environmental influences.
Section 16-5.02.130, Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites Victorville Municipal Code , Section 16-5.02.130, requires that measures be included at or near known sites of archaeological, paleontologi cal, or historical significance. These measures would preserve known sites, minimize potential adverse impacts, allow reasonable time for archaeological investigations of sites, and preserve for posterity, in such other manner as may be necessary or appropriate, the positive aspects of the cultural historical site involved. In addition, Section 16-5.02.130 mandates that grading activities cease where previously unknown sites of archaeological, paleontological, or historic significance are discovered. Victor ville Municipal Code, Section 16 -5.02.130, requires that the discovery of a significant archaeological, paleontological, or historical site be reported to the Planning Director within 72 hours from the time the site is found. Within 5 working days after re ceiving a discovery report, the Planning Director is mandated to retain the services of qualified professionals to conduct a preliminary investigation of the site. If the preliminary investigation confirms that the site is or may be a significant archaeolo gical, paleontological, or historical site, the grading permit remains suspended for up to 45 days from the date the discovery was reported. The suspension may exceed 45 days under extraordinary circumstances if, upon application of the Planning Director to the City Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Council, the City Council concurs. During the period of suspension, the Planning Director is required to develop conditions to be attached to the grading permit. When conditions are developed and attached to the permit, the permit must be reissued subject to the conditions, and the suspension shall be terminated.
3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:
Threshold 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Threshold 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Threshold 3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Threshold 4: 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:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Reso urces, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set fo rth 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.
3.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to cultural resources and TCRs that could result from implementation of the project.
3.3.4.1 Threshold 1: Historical Resources
Impact Analysis
The record searches and archival research identified 60 resources that are significant at the local, state, or federal level . Six of the resources (P -36-002910, U.S. Highway 66; P -36-004411, The Mormon Trail/Mormon Road; P-36-004272, Old Spanish Trail; P -36-018738, U.S. Highway 66; Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Alert Road; and 13746 Alert Road) have been listed or recommended eligible to be listed on the NRHP or the CRHR. Four of the resources (P -36-002910, U.S. Highway 66; P -36-004411, The Mormon Trail/Mormon Road; CHL-576, the Mojave Trail; CHL-939, Site of Hula Ville) are listed as California Historical Landmarks. Twenty -six resources have been recommended as locally significant, with nine resources listed as locally important within the City of Victorville Old Town Specific Plan and 17 resources previously recommended as locally significant by the City of Victorville Chamber of Commerce. Table 3.3-1, Historical Resources Eligible for or Listed on the NRHP, CRHR, California Historic Landmark, or Local Importance in the Planning Area, identifies these resources.
Table 3.3-1. Historical Resources Eligible for or Listed on the NRHP, CRHR, California Historic Landmark, or Local Importance in the Planning Area Primary
Number
Resource
Name
National
Register of
Historic
Places
Built
Environmental
Resource
Directory
California
Historic
Landmark
City of
Victorville Old
Town Specific
Plan
City of
Victorville
Chamber of
Commerce
P-36-002910 US Highway
66 — — X — —
P-36-004411
The Mormon
Trial/ Mormon
Road
— — — X —
P-36-004272 Old Spanish
Trail X — — — —
36-018724
Portland
Cement
Company
— X — — —
36-018725 15554 2nd
Street — X — — —
36-018726 15574 2nd
Street — X — — —
— 15611 3rd
Street — X — — —
36-018727 15563 5th
Street — X — — —
36-018728 15547 8th
Street X X — — —
— Alert Rd X X — — —
— 13746 Alert Rd — X — — —
36-018729 16927 B Street — X — — —
— 18422 Bear
Valley Road — X — — —
—
15750
Cottonwood
Street
— X — — —
36-018731 16669 D Street — X — — —
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.3-1. Historical Resources Eligible for or Listed on the NRHP, CRHR, California Historic Landmark, or Local Importance in the Planning Area Primary
Number
Resource
Name
National
Register of
Historic
Places
Built
Environmental
Resource
Directory
California
Historic
Landmark
City of
Victorville Old
Town Specific
Plan
City of
Victorville
Chamber of
Commerce
36-018732 16745 D Street — X — — —
36-018733 16771 D Street — X — — —
36-018734 16805 D Street — X — — —
36-018735 16845 D Street — X — — —
— 15526
Hesperia Road — X — — —
— 16705 Joshua
Street — X — — —
— 16694 Mc
Kinney Way — X — — —
— 16461 Mojave
Drive — X — — —
36-018736 16946 Monte
Vista Street — X — — —
36-027574 15480 Seals
Road — X — — —
36-027570 17614 Spencer
Road — X — — —
36-027571 17571 Spencer
Street X X — — —
— State Route 18 — X — — —
36-018738 State Route 66 — X — — —
36-018739
21012
Stoddard Wells
Road
— X — — —
36-027572 15425 Turner
Road — — X — —
36-027573 15464 Turner
Road — — X — —
CHL-576 The Mojave
Trail — — — X —
CHL-939 Site of Hula
Ville — — — X —
36-000072 Culbertson
Ranch Site — — — X —
P-36- 006304 — — — — X —
P-36- 006013 — — — — X —
P-36- 006533 — — — — X —
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-21 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.3-1. Historical Resources Eligible for or Listed on the NRHP, CRHR, California Historic Landmark, or Local Importance in the Planning Area Primary
Number
Resource
Name
National
Register of
Historic
Places
Built
Environmental
Resource
Directory
California
Historic
Landmark
City of
Victorville Old
Town Specific
Plan
City of
Victorville
Chamber of
Commerce
P-36- 006793
Atchison
Topeka Santa
Fe Railroad
Cajon Rail
Alignment
— — — X —
P-36- 007694
Los Angeles
Department of
Water and
Power Boulder
Transmission
Lines
— — — X —
P-36- 010315
Edison
Company
Boulder Dam-
San
Bernardino
Electrical
Transmission
Line
— — — X —
P-36- 010316
Kramer-
Victorville
Transmission
Line
— — — X —
P1584-1
Mojave
Narrows
Crossing
— — — X —
— Indian Marie’s
Grave Site — — — — X
— The Barrel
House — — — — X
— First National
Bank — — — — X
— Green Tree Inn
Sign — — — — X
— McDougal
Cottage — — — — X
— Methodist
Church — — — — X
— Old Sheriff’s
Office — — — — X
— Old Victor
School — — — — X
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-22 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.3-1. Historical Resources Eligible for or Listed on the NRHP, CRHR, California Historic Landmark, or Local Importance in the Planning Area Primary
Number
Resource
Name
National
Register of
Historic
Places
Built
Environmental
Resource
Directory
California
Historic
Landmark
City of
Victorville Old
Town Specific
Plan
City of
Victorville
Chamber of
Commerce
— Victor Valley
Memorial Park — — — — X
— Victorville “V” — — — — X
— The Chantry
House — — — — X
—
Victor Valley
Junior High
School
Gymnasium
— — — — X
—
8th Street
Community
Center
— — — — X
— U.S. Highway
66 — — — — X
— The Jail — — — — X
— Victorville
Hardware — — — — X
—
San
Bernardino
County
Fairground
Sign
— — — — X
Source: Appendix D.
Although there are no specific development projects associated with the proposed project , implementation of the General Plan Update would guide development within the Planning Area.
Therefore, development under the General Plan Update could impact any of t hese historical resources or previously unidentified, undesignated resources. In addition, other buildings or structures that could meet the NRHP criteria upon reaching 50 years of age might be impacted by development or redevelopment activity that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update.
In addition, effects on a historical district, building, structure, or feature deemed to be significant could be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired.
The Victorville 2030 General Plan Resource Element contains several goals and policies with the intent of preserving cultural resou rces, including as -built environmental resources. The City developed two policies in support of Resource Element Goal 5 —Policy 5.1, determine the presence/absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources in the review of public and private Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
development and infrastructure projects, and Policy 5.2, which prohibits the destruction of cultural and paleontological materials that contain information of importance to our knowledge of the evolution of life forms and history of human settlement in the Planning Area unless sufficient documentation of that information is accomplished and distributed to the appropriate scientific community. Under Goal 5, Policy 5.1, the City established the following implementation measures to assist in resource identification and impact determination:
Implementation Measure 5.1.1.1: As a City Planning Department function, maintain maps illustrating areas that have a moderate -high probability of yielding important cultural resources as a result of land alteration projects. Implementation Measure 5.1.1.2: Establish a transmittal system with the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands. When a project is in its initial phase, the City may send a location map to the AIC for a transmittal-level records search. The transmittal identifies the presence or absence of known cultural resources and/or previously performed studies in and near the planning area. The AIC also offers recommendations regarding the need for additional studies, if warranted.
Implementation Measure 5.1.1.3: When warranted based on the findings of reconnaissance level surveys by a qualified professional archaeologist and/or transmittals from the AIC, require Phase I cultural resource assessments by qualified archaeologists, historians, and/or architectural historians, especially in areas of high sensitivity for cultural resources, as shown on the maps maintained in the City Planning Department. The scope of such a survey shall include, as appropriate, in-depth records search at the AIC, historic background research, intensive -level field survey, consultation with the Mohave Historical Society, and consultation with the appropriate Native American representatives and tribal organizations. Implementation Measure 5.1.1.4: Complete a Planning Area -wide assessment of the paleontological sensitivity, based on a review of geologic formations and a review of paleontological records that identify those formations that have yielded or are expected to yield fossil materials of importance to the scientific community.
Under Goal 5, Policy 5.2, the City established the following measures to aid in the curbing of the destruction of cultural resources:
Implementation Measure 5.1.2.1: Enact a historic preservation ordinance and/or prepare a historic preservation plan to outline the goals and objectives of the City ’s historic preservation programs and present an official historic context statement for the evaluation of cultural resources within the City’s jurisdiction.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Implementation Measure 5.1.2.2: Assist local property owners in finding and taking advantage of incentives and financial assistance for historic preservation that are available through various federal, state, or city programs. Implementation Measure 5.1.2.3: Require paleontological monitoring of land alteration projects involving excavation into native geologic materials known to have a high sensitivity for the presence of paleontological resources.
Furthermore, Victorville Municipal Code, Section 16-5.02.130, includes grading regulations that pertain to archaeological and historical sites:
Permits to grade at or near known archaeological, paleontological, or similar sites of historical significance may be conditioned so as to (1) ensure preservation of the site; (2) minimize adverse impacts on the site; (3) allow reasonable time for qualified professionals to perform archaeological investigations at the site; or (4) preserve for posterity, in such other manner as may be necessary or appropriate, the positive aspects of the cultural historical site involved.
If it is learned after a grading permit has been issued that significant archaeological, paleontological, or historical site may be encompassed within the area being graded, grading must cease and the grading per mit must be suspended. The discovery of a significant archaeological, paleontological, or historical site shall be reported to the Planning Director within 72 hours from the time the site is found. The Planning Director, within 5 working days after receiving a discovery report, must retain qualified professionals to conduct a preliminary investigation of the site. If the preliminary investigation confirms that the site is or may be a significant archaeological, paleontological, or historical site, the gradi ng permit shall remain suspended for a period not to exceed 45 days from the date the discovery was reported. The suspension may exceed 45 days under extraordinary circumstances if, upon application of the Planning Director to the City Council, the City Co uncil concurs. During the period of suspension, Victorville Municipal Code , Section 16- 5.02.130, requires that the Planning Director develop conditions to be attached to the grading permit so as to (1) ensure preservation of the site; (2) minimize adverse impacts on the site; (3) allow reasonable time for qualified professionals to perform archaeological investigations at the site; or (4) preserve for posterity, in such other manner as may be necessary or appropriate, the positive aspects of the cultural historical site involved.
Future development in the City will be required to comply with the provisions of the Victorville General Plan and Municipal Code pertaining to historical resources . However, i mpacts on historical resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual resource and the characteristics of the proposed Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-25 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
activity. Therefore, future development consistent with the proposed General Plan Update would result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, due to development in accordance with the General Plan Update. Impacts would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to historical resources:
CUL-1: Identification and Evaluation of Built Environment Resources. For future development projects with the potential to impact built environment resources, the evaluation of built environment resources shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Professionally Qualified Standards in architectural history or history as determined by the City of Victorville . If built environment resources have been identified that meet the age -threshold for eligibility then the qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct a reconnaissance-level and/or intensive-level survey in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded potential historical resources that may b e potentially affected by the project. Pursuant to the definition of a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act, potential historical resources shall be evaluated under a developed historic context.
CUL-2: Additional Mitigation for Built Environment Resources. If avoidance or preservation in place of a built environment resource is not possible then appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. To ensure that projects requiring the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource do not impair its significance, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments o f Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent possible. The application of the standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Professionally Qualified Standards set by the City of Victorvill e. Prior to any construction activities that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character -defining features and construction activities shall be provided to and approved by the City of Victorville.
If the project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource, the project shall record the resource prior to construction activities.
Recordation shall take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey, Historic Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-26 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
American E ngineering Record, or Historic American Landscape Survey documentation and shall be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the Professionally Qualified Standards set by the City of Victorville .
Documentation shall include an architectural and historical narrative; photographs; and supplementary information such as building plans and elevations, and/or historic photographs. Documentation shall be reproduced on archival paper and placed in appropriate local, state, or federal instituti ons. The specific scope and details of documentation shall be developed at the project level.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would reduce potential impacts associated with historical resources. However, if the proposed project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would not adequately replace the demolished structures and would not reasonably mitigate the impacts of the demolition to less than significant because it would no longer convey its historical significance.
Therefore, impacts on historical resources as a result of future development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.3.4.2 Threshold 2: Archaeological Resources
Impact Analysis
Future development in accordance with the General Plan Update could adversely impact known or previously unrecorded cultural resources that may be eligible to the CRHR. Potential impacts to cultural/archaeological resources could result from clearing, trenching, grading , or other ground-disturbing activities associated with the implementation of the project.
As shown on Figure 3.3-1, Cultural Resource Sensitivity within the City of Victorville and Sphere of Influence, much of the Planning Area has been identified as having a low or moderate sensitivity for cultural resources. The areas containing low sensitivity are located alo ng predominantly level terrain and away from medium- and large-sized drainages. Moderate sensitivity areas are typically located along terrace crests and the upper elevations of medium and large -sized drainages. Areas containing a high sensitivity for cult ural resources are focused primarily within the lower elevations of major drainages, including the Mojave River.
As discussed in Section 3.3.1.5, 119 prehistoric cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Planning Area. Prehistoric cultural resources are often identified in proximity to known water sources such as the Mojave River. These water sources were present within the vicinity of the Planning Area during the prehistoric period. In the prehistoric past, large layers of alluvium were deposited along the perimeter of the Mojave River and associated drainages as river levels rose and dissipated over time. Furthermore, early agricultural use of the project may have obscured Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-27 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
the ground surface and displaced surface and subsurface prehistoric cultural resources, which may be present at depth. Additional water sources, such as springs and seasonal drainages, which may have been present within the prehistoric period, could also have been obscured or destroyed by modern development and agricult ural use. Finally, as much of the Planning Area was originally developed prior to the implementation of CEQA, prehistoric cultural resources may be present but have not yet been recorded in areas developed prior to the requirement of environmental studies.
Although no specific development projects are associated with the General Plan Update, implementation of the proposed project would guide future development in the Planning Area.
Therefore, future development consistent with the General Plan Update could affect known or previously unidentified resources. Impacts to resources that are determined to be important under criteria provided in CEQA (Section 15064.5) would be considered significant. As discussed in Section 3.3.4.1, the Victorville General Plan Resource Element contains several goals and policies with the intent of preserving archaeological resources and Victorville Municipal Code includes grading regulations that pertain to archaeological sites.
Future development in the City would be required to comply with these provisions of the Victorville General Plan Resource Element and Municipal Code . However, impacts on archaeological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on bot h the individual resource and the characteristics of the proposed activity. The precise extent and nature of impacts that could result from the implementation of the project would be determined when specific project details are developed.
Therefore, damage to or destruction of previously unknown subsurface cultural resources could occur as a result of future development consistent with the proposed General Plan Update.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the project would have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, due to development in accordance with the General Plan Update. Impacts would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL-4, and CUL -5 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources.
CUL-3: Site-Specific Cultural Resources Study and Evaluation of Resources. Future projects that would disturb previously undeveloped areas or areas containing known archaeological resources shall complete a Cultural resource assessment performed under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior ’s Professionally Qualified Standards as determined by the Cit y of Victorville . Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-28 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Coast Information Center and a search of the Sacred Lands Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in areas that are undeveloped to locate any surface cultural materials and/or a built environment resources survey shall be conducted. If resources are identified during the site-specific archaeological survey, then a Phase II evaluation of the resources to the California Register of Historical Resources shall be conducted to determine if the resource is significant under the California Environmental Quality Act, and would be adversely impacted by the project. A N ative American monitor from a culturally affiliated Tribe shall be present during any archaeological excavations involving prehistoric cultural resources. The evaluation of built environment resources shall be performed by an architectural historian or his torian who meets the Professionally Qualified Standards in architectural history or history.
If no significant resources are found, and site conditions are such that there is no potential for further discoveries, then no further action is required. All resources should be documented on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation site forms and results of all assessments should be documented in a technical report.
If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified during the Phase I or Phase II assessments, and impacts to these resources cannot be avoided, then appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken as described in Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
If no significant resources are found, but there is potential for unknown archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Resources to be uncovered during specific project activities, then Mitigation Measure CUL-5 (archaeological and Native American monitoring program) shall be implemented.
CUL-4: Avoidance a nd Preservation of Cultural Resources. The preferred alternative for mitigating impacts to cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources is avoidance or preservation in place. If avoidance or preservation is demonstrated to be infeasible, then alternative measures shall be required depending on site conditions and guided by the recommendations of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior ’s Professionally Qualified Standards . Avoidance of cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources may be accomplished through a project redesign. Preservation in place may include planning construction to avoid significant resources; planning parks, green space, or other open space to preserve cultural resources; or “capping” or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building. Alternatively, a Phase III data recovery program may be implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation ’s Archaeological Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-29 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Resource Management Reports: R ecommended Contents and Format (1990) and Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991).
CUL-5: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring Program. Because there is always a potential for encountering cultural resources during excavation, the implementation of an archaeological and Native American monitoring program is recommended for future development that would conduct new ground disturbance in areas identified as having a potential for unknown archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Res ources. The archaeological and Native American monitoring program shall consist of the full-time presence of a qualified archaeologist and traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American monitor during ground -disturbing activities , or an alternativ e frequency approved by the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor. If an archaeological and Native American monitoring program is implemented, the program shall include the following:
1. The requirement for the archaeological and Native Amer ican monitoring to be noted on applicable construction documents, including plans.
2. The archaeologist and Native American monitor shall attend the pre-construction meeting with the contractor and/or the City.
3. The archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative consultation with the Native American monitor during all ground -disturbing or altering activities, as identified above.
4. The archaeologist and/or Native American monitor may halt ground -disturbing activities if archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features are discovered. In general, ground-disturbing activities shall be directed away from these deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential significance, the subject of which shall be determined by the archaeologist and the Native American monitor.
Ground-disturbing activities shall not resume until the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor and the City, deems the cultural resource or feature has been appropriately documented and/or protected.
5. Archaeological isolates and non -significant materials shall be minimally documented in the field and ground disturbance shall be allowed to resume.
6. The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural resources and/or unique archaeological resources is the preferable mitigation for the proposed project. If avoidance is not feasible, a Data Recovery Plan may be authorized by the City as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (see Mitigation Measure CUL -4 for options related to avoidance and preservation of cultural resources).
7. Prior to the conclusion of each project, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the archaeological Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-30 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
and Native American monitoring program (such as, but not limited to, a data recovery program) shall be submitted by the archaeologist, along with the Native American monitor’s notes and comments, to the City of Victorville for approval.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL -4, and CUL -5 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
3.3.4.3 Threshold 3: Human Remains
Impact Analysis
Although no specific development projects are associated with the proposed project, implementation of the General Plan Update would guide future development in the Planning Area. Ground disturbance associated with the implementation of future project consistent with the General Plan Update could have the potential to distu rb or destroy unknown human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. Excavation during construction activities in the City could disturb these resources, including Native American burials. The precise extent and nature of impacts that could result from implementation of future development projects would be determined when specific project details are available. Therefore, future development in accordance with the General Plan Update would have the potential to disturb unknown human remains.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the proposed project may d isturb human remains, including those interred outside dedicated cemeteries. Impacts would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5, which would provide for the determination of the potentia l for significant resources, avoidance or preservation of significant resources, and monitoring and identification significant resources during construction activities, and CUL-6 would reduce potential impacts to human remains.
CUL-6: Identification and Treatment of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or possible human remains) are encountered, all ground disturbance within 100 feet of the remains shall halt and California Environm ental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15064.5, subdivision (e ); California Public Resource Code , Section 5097.98 ; and California Health and Safety Code , Section 7050.5, shall be followed, including informing the County Medical Examiner and City of Victorville. If human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (California Public Resources Code, Section Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-31 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
5097). The Medical Examiner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission to determine the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall inspect the site as needed and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associat ed grave artifacts. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials is proprietary and shall not be disclosed to the general public. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (in place), or in a secure location, as approved by the most likely descendant until the repatriation process can be completed. According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL -4, CUL -5, and CUL -6 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.
3.3.4.4 Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Analysis
The significance of a cultural resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics that convey significance. Impacts to TCRs, archaeological resources, or human remains most often occur as the result of trenching and grading. These resources may also be subject to indirect impacts as the result of project -related activities that increase erosion, compression, or accessibility. Under CEQA, an effect on nonphysical values (such as tribal values or other spiritual or religious values) is not considered an environmental effect; however, when a project would result in a physical effect, these values may be considered in determining whether the physical effect is significant.
A record search of the SLF held by the NAHC was requested on December 6, 2020. On December 21, 2020, NAHC responded that the record search of the SLF was positive and recommended that the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe and the SMBMI be contacted for additional information, in addition to eight other tribal organizations and individuals. On December 23, 2020, letters were sent to the 10 Native American tribal organizations and individuals requesting any information they may have on cultural resources in the Planning Area.
On December 23, 2020, Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, responded via email that they do not wish to comment on the project, and defer to more local Tribes.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-32 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
On December 28, 2020, Mr. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the S MBMI, responded that the Planning Area contains several tribal resource loci, mostly distributed on both sides of the Desert Knolls Wash, the Lower Slough, and the Mojave Narrows Regional Park shorelines. These loci are composed of lithic scatter s, ceramic scatters, bedrock milling features, petroglyphs, cairns, pictographs, trails/linear earthworks, and rock shelters. These sites surround a known village site, Patkaits. Also butting against the Rockview Nature Park are a great number of archaeological sites surrounding the Serrano ancestral village of Topipabit. These sites have the same components as those surrounding Patkaits. An additional series of sites exist east of Mesa Linda Avenue, west of Amargosa Road, south of Hopland Street, and north of Palmdale Road. The Planning Area is of great concern to SMBMI. Additional notices providing opportunity for consultation were mailed to the applicable Tribes on August 31, 2022 in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18.
Future development consistent with the General Plan Update would have the potential to result in grading in portions of the City and sphere of influence with sensitivity to TCRs. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause disturbance to TCRs. In addition, indirect adverse effects may also result from increased accessibility to TCRs that could lead to resource looting or vandalism activities. While the General Plan Update does not directly propose any adverse changes to recorded TCRs, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded TCRs . Therefore, future development consistent with the General Plan Update would have the potential to affect known or previously unidentified TCRs.
Significance of Impact
Future development consistent with the General Plan Update would have the potential to impact TCRs, which would result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and CUL -6 would provide for the determination for the potential for TCRs, avoidance or preservation of known TCRs, monitoring and identification of TCRs during construction activities , and treatment of human remains to reduce potential impacts to TCRs.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL -4, CUL -5, and CUL -6 would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-33 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address potentia l cumulative impacts relating to cultural resources and TCRs that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
3.3.5.1 Cumulative Threshold 1: Historical Resources
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to historic resources is defined as the Planning Area. Cumulative impacts to historic resources would involve projects affecting local resources with the same level or type of designation or evaluation, projects affecting other structures in the same historic district, or projects that involve resources that are significant in the same context as resources associated with the proposed project. Known or future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers maintained by the City would be protected through local ordinances, Gen eral Plan policies, and state and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historic resources. However, it is possible that adherence to these policies may not adequately avoid or reduce incremental impacts, and such projects would require additional measures to continue to occur over time , leading to a cumulatively significant impact.
Future development consistent with the General Plan Update could impact identified historical resources or previously unidentified, undesigna ted resources resulting in a substantial adverse change in a historic resource. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL-2 would reduce cumulative impacts to a less that significant level. Therefore, the project ’s contribution to a cumulative historical resources impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.3.5.2 Cumulative Threshold 2: Archaeological Resources The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to archaeological resources is considered to be the County. Evidence of human occupation in the Planning Area is represented by numerous archaeological sites throughout the City and overall County region. These sites contain artifacts and features of value in reconstructing cultural patterns of prehistoric life. Due to the scarcity of archaeological resources and the potential for construction activities associated with future development project s in the County to impact these resources, a significant cumulative impact to archaeological resources exists.
The Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix D) concluded that cultural sensitivity varies across the Planning Area, with the majority of th e Planning Area identified as low to moderate sensitivity. As described in Section 3.3.4.2, archaeological resources could be impacted as a result of construction related to future development consistent with the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL -5 would reduce cumulative impacts to known or unknown buried archaeological resources to less than significant. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative archaeological resources impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-34 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.3.5.3 Cumulative Threshold 3: Human Remains
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to human remains is the County.
The presence of numerous archaeological sites indicates that prehistoric human oc cupation occurred throughout the region. Additionally, historic era occupation of the area increases the possibility that humans were interred outside a formal cemetery. Cumulative development projects would have the potential to encounter unknown, interre d human remains during construction activities, which would result in a significant cumulative impact.
As described above in Section 3.3.4.3, future development projects consistent with the General Plan Update may inadvertently discover unrecorded human remains during construction activities.
However, the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and CUL-6, which require archaeological and Native American monitors during construction and compliance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project ’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.3.5.4 Cumulative Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources Cumulative projects in the County have the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with the loss of TCRs through development activities that could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR. These sites may contain artifacts and resources associated with tribal cultural values and religious beliefs. Any cumulative projects that involve ground -disturbing activities have the potential to result in significant impacts on TCRs. Therefore, the cumulative destruction of TCRs from planned construction and development projects in in San Bernardino County would be cumulatively significant.
As described in Section 3.3.4.4, future development projects consistent with the General Plan Update could result in significant impacts to unknown subsurface TCRs. This cumulative impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -3, CUL-4, CUL -5, and CUL -6, which re quire the evaluation of any feasible means of reducing disturbance to TCRs, monitoring during construction, and repatriation of materials associated with TCRs. Therefore, the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
5. Constraints Analysis
Victorville General Plan Update – Cultural Resources 105
Figure 4.Cultural Resource Sensitivity within the City of Victorville and Sphere of Influence Source: Redtail 2022.
Path: C:\Users\Randy.Deodat\Desktop\Projects_Clone\City of Corona\Corona_Recycled_Water\Map Docs\NOP Miles
0 42 Figure 3.3-1N
Cultural Resource Sensitivity within the
City of Victorville and Sphere of Influence
Victorville General Plan Update
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft PEIR 3.3-36 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project). The analysis in this section is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model outputs (Appendix B) and the Transportation Impact Study (VMT Analysis) prepared by CR Associates (2022) (Appendix E).
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global warming is the observed increase in average temperature of Earth’s surface and atmosphere. One identified cause of global warming is an increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Earth’s natural warming process is known as the “greenhouse effect.” It is called the greenhouse effect because Earth and the surrounding atmosphere are similar to a greenhouse with glass panes in that the atmosphere allows solar radiation (sunlight) into Earth ’s atmosphere but prevents radiative heat from escaping, thus warming Earth ’s atmosphere. Some levels of GHGs keep the average surface temperature of Earth hospitable; how ever, excessive concentrations of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere can result in increased global mean temperatures with associated adverse climatic and ecological impacts.
3.4.1.1 Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The following gases are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change1:
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally occurring GHGs (e.g., CO 2, CH 4, and N2O), some gases (e.g., HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6) are completely new to the atmosphere. CO 2 accounts for the largest amount of GHG emissions, and collectively, CO 2, CH4, and N2O amount to 80 percent of the total radiative forcing from well-mixed GHGs (CARB 2014). For the purposes of this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), the term “GHGs” refers collectively to the
1 The GHGs listed are consistent with the definition in AB 32 (California Government Code, Section 38505), as discussed in this section.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
six gases identified in the bulleted list above. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six primary GHGs (USEPA 2022).
Carbon Dioxide
In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form as CO 2. Natural sources of CO 2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals, and plants; volcanic outgassing; decomposition of organic matter; and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas) and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. Earth maintains a natural carbon balance, and when concentrations of CO2 are upset, the system gradually returns to its natural state through natural processes. Natural changes to the carbon cycle work slowly, especially compared to the rapid rate at which humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Natural removal processes (e.g., photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species) cannot keep pace with this extra input of human-made CO2, and consequently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere (USEPA 2022).
Methane
CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen.
Natural sources of CH4 include fires, geologic processes, and bacteria that produce CH4 in a variety of settings (most notably, wetlands). Anthropogenic sources include rice cultivation, livestock, landfills and waste treatment, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric CH4 (a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere) cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing (USEPA 2022).
Nitrous Oxide
N2O is produced naturally by a variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. N 2O is also a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion.
Both mobile and stationary combustion sources emit N 2O. The quantity of N 2O emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in the state (USEPA 2022).
Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone (O 3)-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol. 2 PFCs and SF 6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution,
2 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect th e O3 layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons that are believed to be responsible for O 3 depletion and are also potent GHGs.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
and magnesium casting. No aluminum or magnesium production occurs in the state; however, rapid growth in the semiconductor industry, which is active in the state, has led to greater use of PFCs. However, the proposed project does not include any components known to emit these three GHGs; therefore, these substances are not discussed further in this analysis (USEPA 2022).
3.4.1.2 Global Warming Potential
The previously described gases vary considerably in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas in absorbing infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (referred to as atmospheric lifetime). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by 1 unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by 1 unit mass of CO 2 over a specified time period.
GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e). For example, N2O is 265 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO 2. Table 3.4-1, Global Warming Potential for Selected Greenhouse Gases, identifies the GWP for each GHG analyzed in this section.
Table 3.4-1. Global Warming Potential for Selected Greenhouse Gases Pollutant Lifetime (years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-year)2
CH4 12 25
CO2 ~1001 1
N2O 114 298
Source: USEPA 2022.
Notes: CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; N2O = nitrous oxide 1 CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime and cannot be readily approximated as a single number. 2 The warming effects over a 100-year period relative to other GHGs.
3.4.1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
The City of Victorville prepared a Climate Actio n Plan in 2015 that included an inventory of community GHG emissions and forecasted GHG emissions for the year 2020 (City of Victorville 2015). Total community emissions were calculated to be 871,976 MT CO2e in 2015 and emissions were forecasted to increas e to 1,193,933 by 2020. The emissions inventory did not include emissions associated with existing cement manufacturing processes because plant operations are regulated by the state and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) and beyond the control of the City. Building energy made up the highest proportion of community GHG emissions in 2015 and 2020 (approximately 51 percent in both years), followed by on -road transportation emissions (approximately 42 percent in both years).
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.4.2 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address GHG emissions.
3.4.2.1 Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing federal policy to address global climate change. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, which applies to fossil fuel and industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy -duty and off-road vehicles and requires annual reporting of emissions. This rule does not regulate the emission of GHGs; it only requires the monitoring and reporting of GHGs for those sources above certain thresholds.
3.4.2.2 State
Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, California’s Governor announced, through Executive Order (EO) S -3-05, the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels. By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
EO S-3-05 directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate efforts to meet the targets with the heads of other state agencies (the Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture; Secretary of the California Resources Agency; Chairperson of CARB; Chairperson of the California Energy Commissio n; and the President of the California Public Utilities Commission). This group became the California Climate Action Team. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ( Assembly Bill [ AB] 32), which created a co mprehensive, multiyear program to reduce GHG emissions in California , as described below . In 2016, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill ( SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Senate Bill 32
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 32 (Stats. 2016, Ch. 249) added a new Section 38566 to the California Health and Safety Code. It states that “in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost -effective greenhouse gas emissi ons reductions authorized by [Division 25.5 of the California Health and Safety Code], [CARB] shall ensure that statewide Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” In other words, SB 32 requires California, by the year 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As part of this legislation, CARB was required to prepare a Scoping Plan that demonstrates how the state will achieve this goal. Th e Scoping Plan was adopted in 2011, and in it, local governments are described as “essential partners” in meeting the statewide goal, recommending a GHG reduction level of 15 percent below 2005 –2008 levels (depending on when a full emissions inventory is available) by 2020.
CARB released California ’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) in November 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan provides strategies for achieving the 2030 target established by Executive Order (EO) B -30-15 and codified in Senate Bill (SB) 32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The 2017 Scoping Plan recommends local plan-level GHG emissions reduction goals. CARB recommends that local governments aim to achieve emissions of no more than 6 MT CO 2e per capita by 2030 and no more t han 2 MT CO 2e per capita by 2050. A Draft 2022 Scoping Plan has been made available for public review, but it has not been adopted. The 2022 Scoping Plan update assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target and identifies a path to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 (CARB 2022).
Executive Order B-55-18
Governor Brown signed EO B -55-18 in September 2018 to establish a statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter (CARB 2022). Policies and programs undertaken to achieve this goal include the following:
Seek to improve air quality and support the health and economic resiliency of urban and rural communities, particularly low-income and disadvantaged communities. Be implemented in a manner that supports climate adaptation and biodiversity, including protection of the state’s water supply, water quality, and native plants and animals.
A described above, a Draft 2022 Scoping Plan has been prepared to identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.
Assembly Bill 341, Commercial Recycling
AB 341 sets a statewide goal of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by the year 2020. As required by AB 341, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Recovery (CalRecycle) adopted the Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation on January 17, 2012. The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. It became effective immediately and clarified the responsibilities in implementing mandatory commercial recycling. The Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation focuses on increased commercial waste diversion as a method to reduce GHG emissions. The regulation is designed to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions of 5 million MT CO2e, which equates to roughly an additional 2–3 MT of currently disposed commercial solid waste being recycled by 2020 and thereafter.
CALGreen Building Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 (Ca lifornia’s Green Building Standard Code [CALGreen]), was adopted in 2010 and went into effect on January 1, 2011. Further updates to CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020. CALGreen is the first statewide mandatory green building code and significantly raises the minimum environmental standards for construction of new buildings in California. The mandatory provisions in CALGreen reduce the use of volatile organic compound -emitting materials, strengthen water conservation, and require construction waste recycling.
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (California ’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non -Residential Buildings) (Title 24), was established in 1978 to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity production by fossil fuels and natural gas use result in GHG emissions, and energy-efficient buildings require less electricity and natural gas. Therefore, increased energy efficiency will result in decreased GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission adopted its 2008 Standards on April 23, 2008, in response to AB 32. The 2008 Standards were adopted to (1) provide California with an adequate, reasonably priced, and environmentally sound supply of energy; (2) pursue California energy policy, which s tates that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California ’s energy needs; (3) meet the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building code s every 3 years; and (4) meet EO B18 -12 in the Green Building Initiative to improve the energy efficiency of non -residential buildings through aggressive standards. The latest update of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, will significantly increase the energy efficiency of new residential buildings.
Executive Order S-01-07, Low Carbon Fuel Standard
In 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S -01-07, which mandates (1) that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
at least 10 percent by 2020 and (2) that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels be established in California. CARB developed the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulation pursuant to the state’s authority under AB 32 and the federal Clean Air Act and adopted it in 2009.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Established by SB 1078 in 2002, the Renewable Portfolio Standard requires energy providers to derive 33 percent of their electricity from qualified renewable sources by 2020. In September 2018, the State Assembly passed and the Governor approved SB 100, which requires energy providers to derive 60 percent of their electricity from qualified renewable sources by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. The Renewable Portfolio Standard is anticipated to lower emission factors (i.e., fewer GHG emissions per kilowatt -hour used) from utilities across the state, including those providers serving the City of Victorville.
Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities Strategy
SB 375 was adopted in 2008 and provided for a new planning process that coordinates land use planning, Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established i n AB 32. SB 375 required RTPs developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their RTPs. The goal of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through land use planning and consequent transportation patterns. SB 375 also included provisions for streamlined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for some infill projects such as transit-oriented development.
3.4.2.3 Regional
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has adopted the 2020 Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS]), and is currently preparing a 2024 update. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan for the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. The plan builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.
The 2024 Connect SoCal plan will continue to build on these efforts to achieve regional emissions standards and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Key components of the plan include encouraging active transportation, increasi ng transit access, transportation and demand management, and prioritizing infill and redevelopment to accommodate growth.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.4.2.4 Local
Victorville Climate Action Plan
The City prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2015 to present GHG inventories, identify the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identify local measures selected by the City to reduce GHG emissions under the City ’s jurisdictional control to achieve the City’s identified AB 32 2020 GHG reduction target. The CAP included a Victorville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table to demonstrate CAP consistency. However, the City’s CAP does not align with the statewide goals beyond 2020. C onsequently, the City is currently working with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to update the City’s current CAP to address SB 32 and post-2020 GHG emission reductions.
To meet the intent of SB 32, the City is in the process of a dopting the City of Victorville 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) to implement policies focused on GHG emissions. The GGRP sets an aggressive goal to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2008 baseline GHG emission levels by 2030. To achieve this goal, the GGRP will require that new development have the option of preparing a project -specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions or complete a performance review checklist to demonstrate compliance with performance standards that were developed as part of the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan Update to implement the performance standards and determine GHG reductions from new development during the period.
Victorville General Plan 2030
City policies and implementa tion measures pertaining to GHG emissions are contained in the Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan. These policies and implementation measures include the following:
Goal 7: Energy Conservation – Promote energy sustainability by developing alt ernative power supplies and reducing energy use.
Objective 7.1: Promote alternative energy sources
Policy 7.1.1: Support development of solar, hybrid, wind, and other alternative energy generation plants.
Objective 7.2: Promote energy conservation
Policy 7 .2.1: Support energy conservation by requiring sustainable building design and development for new residential, commercial, and industrial projects.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a signifi cant impact on GHG emissions if it would:
Threshold 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment .
Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Regarding Threshold 1, the determination of significance is governed by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4, which states that “the determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In turn, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4(b), clarifies that a lead agency should consider “whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.” Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4, the GHG analysis for the project appropriately relies on a threshold based on the exercise of careful judgment and is believed to be appropriate in the context of this particular project.
The City has prepared a CAP; however, as described above, the CAP had a horizon year of 2020 and cannot be used for the evaluation of project consistency with statewide emission s reduction goals beyond 2020. Lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of sig nificance recommended or adopted by state or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7[c]). CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and enc ourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in determining the significance of environmental effects. The MDAQMD has adopted a threshold of 100,000 MT CO 2e per year for land development projects . However, this threshold is intended to apply to individual projects, rather than long-term programs. In the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB recommends that local governments aim to achieve emissions of no more than 6 MT CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 MT CO2e per capita by 2050. The horizon year for the General Plan Update is 2040; therefore, the project is compared to an adjusted screening level of 4 MT CO2e per capita for 2040.
In addition, since the City’s adopted CAP would not be consistent with the state’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals, the GHG plan consistency for this project is based off the project ’s consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan. The 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per -capita GHG reduction from p assenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2017 Scoping Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Plan describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The 2017 Scoping Plan does not address the EO B -55-18 goal to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045, and the horizon year for the project is 2040; therefore, consistency with the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan is also addressed.
3.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to GHG emissions that could result from implementation of the project.
3.4.4.1 Threshold 1: Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis
Future GHG emissions from buildout of the land uses accommodated by the General Plan Update were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2040.4.0, using assumptions consistent with the air qual ity analysis. Individual industrial emitters are not known at this time; therefore, stationary sources were not calculated, consistent with the methodology of the City’s CAP. The future land use mix assumes maximum buildout of proposed General Plan land use designations based on the allowable development density for each designation.
The estimate is conservative because it includes the City and its Sphere of Influence. The emissions estimate assumes CalEEMod defaults for utility consumption and solid waste generation. Existing and buildout VMT was obtained from the Transportation Impact Study (VMT Analysis) prepared by CR Associates (2022) (Appendix E). Construction locations, timing, and intensity are currently unknown for future emissions from construction of projects accommodated under the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, construction emissions are addressed qualitatively.
Operation of the land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update would generate GHG emissions from direct sources, such as natural gas consumption, solid waste handling and treatment, landscaping, and motor vehicles, and indirect sources, such as electricity generation and water use. Short-term GHG emissions would result from heavy equipment and construction worker vehicles; however, project-specific information is not available at this time to estimate emissions.
Construction of projects accommodated under the General Plan Update would res ult in incremental contributions to the estimated annual City-wide GHG emissions reported below. The MDAQMD has not published specific guidance on the analysis of GHG emissions from construction emissions. However, as outlined in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) recently adopted GHG thresholds, construction emissions typically represent a very small portion of a project ’s lifetime GHG emissions (BAAQMD 2022). It is unlikely that individual construction projects would exceed the adopte d MDAQMD threshold of 100,000 MT CO2e per year for land development projects Therefore, the significance of GHG emissions focuses on on-going annual GHG contributions.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.4-2, Estimated Annual Operational Emissions, provides estimated existing and bui ldout GHG emissions from all sources within the City boundary and Sphere of Influence. As shown in Table 3.4-2, the General Plan Update would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. However, per-capita emissions would be reduced compared to existing conditions. As such, the General Plan Update provides a more sustainable land use pattern that would increase emissions efficiency in the City and Sphere of Influence. Per-capita emissions in 2040 would be approximately 3.67 MT CO2e.
Emissions would be below the per-capita screening level of 4.0 MT CO2e and would be consistent with the CARB-recommended per-capita targets. Project emissions would be less than significant.
Table 3.4-2. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions
Project MT CO2e
Existing Emissions
Vehicle 552,079
Electricity 131,480
Natural Gas 76,587
Solid Waste 40,445
Water Use 44,191
Hearths 47,529
Landscaping 514
Total Annual Emissions 892,825
Existing Population 194,653
Existing Per-Capita Emissions 4.59
Proposed General Plan Buildout Emissions
Vehicle 723,802
Electricity 195,425
Natural Gas 124,851
Solid Waste 64,194
Water Use 84,028
Hearths 53,861
Landscaping 918
Total Annual Emissions 1,247,079
Projected 2040 Population 339,613
Per-Capita Emissions 3.67
Source: Appendix E.
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a more sustainable land use pattern that would reduce GHG emissions per capita compared to existing conditions, and consistent with recommended CARB targets. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.4.4.2 Threshold 2: Conflict with Applicable Plan
Impact Analysis
The applicable plans for reducing GHG emissions are the 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS, 2017 Scoping Plan, and Draft 2022 Scoping Plan. Consistency with these plans is addressed below. 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Five key SCS strateg ies are included in the 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals. Table 3.4-3¸ Consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, evaluates the project’s consistency with these five strategies. As shown in this table, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission s reduction strategies contained in the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, as demonstrated in the Transportation Impact Study (CR Associates 2022), the General Plan Update would decrease the regional and City of Victorville VMT per service population compared to implementation of the current General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan Update would increase local consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
Table 3.4-3. Consistency with 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations.
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused main streets.
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail
developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses.
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods.
Consistent. The General Plan Update includes a Land Use Element update that focuses on Smart Growth principles and infill development to provide a jobs and housing balance. It would encourage development within proximity to the City center and commercial corridors and aims to minimize the expansion of infrastructure. An objective of the plan is to promote access to public facilities and services by
developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville.
As previously stated, the General Plan Update would reduce VMT per service population compared to implementation of the current General Plan (CR Associates 2022).
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.4-3. Consistency with 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to
existing destinations).
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g. shared
parking or smart parking).
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement.
Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and
affordable housing development.
Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for
building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to
increase housing supply.
Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent. The General Plan Update is intended to provide a variety of housing types and affordability levels, consistent with the needs and requirements identified in the Housing Element Update. It would expand the types of housing in Victorville to accommodate people of all ages,
socioeconomic status, family size, and ability.
Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space.
Improve access to services through technology—such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives
such as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for
storing transit and other multimodal payments.
Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation.
Consistent. The proposed Environmental Justice Element
includes objectives and policies that aim to improve access to public facilities and services. This includes increasing access to active transportation facilities and transit.
Additionally, the proposed Safety Element includes
implementation measures that encourage the use of
renewable sources of backup power for critical infrastructure.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable development implementation projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development near
transit corridors and stations.
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs),
Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open space.
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement
sustainability strategies.
Consistent. An objective of the General Plan Update is to accommodate future growth while promoting sustainability.
Policies and measures include prioritizing infill development, particularly near the existing City core and underutilized commercial areas that are currently served by public services like transit. The General Plan Update also includes policies that promote complete streets and new parks and open
spaces that provide connections within the City. The City would continue to collaborate with SCAG on regional
planning efforts.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.4-3. Consistency with 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency Analysis
Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG
region.
Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions.
Provide educational opportunities to local decisions
makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities
Strategy.
Promote a Green Region
Support development of local climate adaptation and
hazard mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards.
Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration. Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape.
Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation.
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity.
Reduce consumption of resource areas, including
agricultural land.
Identify ways to improve access to public park space.
Consistent. The proposed Safety Element includes a goal and supporting objectives to increase resiliency to the impacts of climate change, including renewable sources of energy for backup power. Additionally, the updated land use plan would include a significant increase in open space with the addition of the Greenway/Utility Corridor that would include multiple connections to improve access to
greenspace. Additionally, the Environmental Justice Element includes a strategy to support edible landscaping and
community gardens to increase local food production.
Source: SCAG 2020.
2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the statewide 2030 target. Chapter 2 of the 2017 Scoping Plan outlines key policies for the achievement of statewide emissions targets. Key policies identified for reducing vehicle emissions are the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Mobile Source Strategy, which set increasingly stringent targets for fuel carbon intensity and encourage use of zero -emission vehicles. The Renewable Portfolio Standard is a key policy for reducing energy emissions. Chapter 2 of the 2017 Scoping Plan does not identify any policies for reducing GHG emissions from solid waste or water use. Because fuel emissions standards are established at the state level by CARB and electricity is supplied by Southern California Edison, reductions in the carbon intensity of proposed project fuel and energy emissions from these programs are beyond the control of project implementation. The proposed project does not include any features that would impede implementation of CARB standards or achievement of Renewable Portfolio Standard. Project operational emissions were modeled for future year 2040 using CalEEMod default emissions rates to demonstrate how vehicle emissions would decrease over time as a result of stricter emissions standards, anticipated increased use in electric vehicles (EVs), and as older, less efficient cars a re taken off the road. As shown in Table Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.4-4, Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison, project emissions from vehicle use are anticipated to increase over time; however, emissions per VMT would decrease. Project vehicle emissions are anticipate d to increase approximately 30 percent from existing conditions, while VMT is anticipated to increase by almost 60 percent . Additionally, the proposed General Plan Update would include policies that support smart growth development and complete streets and encourage EV infrastructure, which would be consistent with the Mobile Source Strategy. Future VMT per service population would decrease compared to implementation of the existing General Plan (CR Associates 2022). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the key policies of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Table 3.4-4. Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison Year Annual Emissions (MT CO2e) Daily VMT
Existing 552,079 4,417,049
Year 2040 723,802 6,953,635
Source: Appendix E.
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT = vehicle miles traveled GHG emissions are rounded to the nearest whole number. Refer to Attachment 1 in Appendix E for exact values.
Draft 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan update assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target and identifies a path to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 (CARB 2022). Similar to the 2017 Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines statewide efforts and does not specifically identify reduction targets for jurisdiction or long-range planning requirements. However, Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan does include recommendations for local government action. Specifically, it provides recommendations to local governments to:
Develop local climate action plans and strategies consistent with the state’s G HG emissions reduction goals;
Localize state-level GHG priorities when approving individual land use projects; and Implement mitigation to reduce GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects.
Appendix D focuses on the importance of adopting a local CAP that meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b), to be considered a qualified CAP that may be used for determining the significance of project GHG impacts under CEQA. Appendix D includes a list of priority GHG measures to include in CAP preparation, listed below in Table 3.4-5, 2022 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action. The General Plan Update includes objectives and policies consistent with these priorities, including increased public access to alternative transportation options, prioritizing infill and mixed-use development for new growth, and increasing green space. However, a q ualified CAP and the CEQA process are identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan to provide a measurable, enforceable tool to address local GHG emissions, and require feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions consistent with state Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
reduction targets. The City is currently preparing a GGRP; however, it is not yet adopted. Until a qualified CAP is adopted, the City would not have a tool in place to evaluate the consistency of new growth with statewide emissions reduction standards or effectively enforce feasible mitigation. Therefore, the Gene ral Plan U pdate is inconsistent with this component of the 2022 Scoping Plan, and a significant impact would occur.
Table 3.4-5. 2022 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action
Priority Areas Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, or preferential parking policies) VMT Reduction Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards in new developments Adopt and implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements
Increase public access to shared clean mobility options (such as planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, transit)
Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood) Preserve natural and working lands
Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes
Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits (such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, replacing energy intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems, etc.)
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings Adopt policies and incentive programs to reduce electrical loads from equipment plugged into outlets (such as purchasing Energy Star equipment for municipal buildings, occupancy sensors, smart power strips, equipment controllers, etc.)
Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage Source: CARB 2022.
Appendix D also includes a focus on addressing housing affordability and social equity, with a focus on infill development. As previously stated, the General Plan Update seeks to promote infill development and a range of housing types to promote housing af fordability. The proposed Environmental Justice Element addresses a range of social equity issues, including access to greenspaces and active transportation facilities. The Safety Element update promotes resiliency to the impacts of climate change, including extreme heat and wildfire hazards. Therefore, the General Plan Update would be consistent with this component of the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not implement all recommendations for local action in the 2022 Scoping Plan. This impact would be significant.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG -1 would require implementation of a qualified CAP to identify GHG emissions reduction strategies that would achieve the City ’s fair-share contribution to achieving statewide emissions reduction goals. Until a plan is adopted, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to implement sustainability features at the individual project level, as feasible.
GHG-1: City-Wide Sustainability Program. The City of Victorville will complete and adopt a Climate Action Plan that meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines , Section 15183.5(b), to be considered a qualified CAP . It is assumed that the adopted Climate Action Plan will demonstrate how the City of Victorville shall implement its fair share of greenhouse gas emissions reductions to achieve statewide emissions reduction goals.
The plan will be adopted in a public process following environmental review. The program shall include an inventory of existing community greenhouse gas emissions; establish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and EO B-55-18; identify greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures to achieve reduction targets; and establish a program to monitor progress. In addition, the plan will establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable . Gre enhouse gas emissions reduction measures may include but not be limited to the recommendations in Table 1, Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action, in Appendix D to the California Air Resources Board California’s Draft 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
GHG-2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Features for Individual Projects. Until a local qualified Climate Action Plan is in place, and before the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments documentation showing that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable and feasible recommendations for new development in Table 1, Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action, in Appendix D to the California Air Resources Board California ’s Draft 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan , provided in Table 3.4 -5, 2022 Scoping Plan Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action , of the PEIR ; or implement project s pecific greenhouse gas mitigation measures as outlined in any required CEQA document (e.g. Mitigated Negative Declaration, EIR, etc.) . Additionally, residential development will be required to demonstrate consistency with the following 2022 Scoping Plan recommended attributes, as feasible unless otherwise addressed via project specific greenhouse gas mitigation measures as outlined in any required CEQA document:
At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents; Result in no net loss of existing affordable units;
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Utilize existing infill sites that are surrounded by urban uses, and reuse or redevelop previously developed, underutilized land presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer); Include transit -supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or are in proximity to existing transit (within ½ mile), or satisfy more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the adopted RTP/SCS for SCS consistency that would go further to reduce emissions;
Do not result in the loss or conversion of the state’s natural and working lands; Use all-electric appliances, without any natural gas connections, and would not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking; Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with C ALGreen Tier 2 standards; and
Relax parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios. Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit. Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG -2 would reduce GHG emissions consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The timing of future CAP adoption is unknown at this time.
In the interim, Mitigation Measure GHG -2 would require development to implement measures consistent with 2022 Scoping Plan recommendations. However, t he leve l of effectiveness and feasibility of reduction measures would vary from project to project and depending on the individual project site, such as the location, size of development, access to transit, type of development, and existing site characteristics. Therefore, consistency with the updated Scoping Plan cannot be demonstrated at this time and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The geographic scope of consideration for GHG emissions is on a global scal e because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small additions, on a global basis.
By nature, GHG evaluations are a cumulative study. As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, the proposed General Plan Update is inherently cumulative and considers cumulative development that could occur in the planning area over a defined time frame. As described in Section
3.4.4, Impacts and Mitigation, implementation of the General Plan Update would result in GHG emissions that would be consistent with 2017 Scoping Plan per-capita emissions targets; however, it would not implement all applicable reduction strategies in the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan until a Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
qualified CAP has been adopted. Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG -2 would reduce GHG emissions compared to business -as-usual conditions; however, consiste ncy with the most recent Scoping Plan cannot be demonstrated at this time. While implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the General Plan Update ’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact, the General Plan Update would have a cumulative ly considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG impact until a qualified CAP has been adopted.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft PEIR 3.4-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.5 Noise
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to noise resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project). The analysis in this section is based on the information in the 2022 Transportation Impact Study (TIS) (VMT Analysis) prepared by CR Associates (Appendix E).
3.5.1 Existing Setting
This section describes the environmental setting for the project as it relates to noise.
3.5.1.1 Quantification of Noise
The California Department of Transportation defines “noise” as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. Sound pressure levels are quantified using a logarithmic ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared called “bels.” A bel is typically divided into tenths, or decibels (dB). Sound pressure alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because frequency (or pitch) also affects how receptors respond to sound. To account for the pitch of sou nds and the corresponding sensitivity of human hearing to sounds, the raw sound pressure level is adjusted with a frequency-dependent A-weighting scale that is stated in units of decibels (dBA) (Caltrans 2013).
Typical A-weighted noise levels are listed in Table 3.5-1, Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels.
Table 3.5-1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
— 110 — Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet — 105 —
— 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet — 95 —
— 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour — 85 — Food blender at 3 feet — 80 — Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime — 75 —
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area — 65 — Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
— 55 — Large business office
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Dishwasher next room
— 45 —
Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 35 —
— 30 — Library
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.5-1. Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night
— 20 —
Broadcast/recording studio
— 10 —
Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Sources: Caltrans 2013.
Note: dBA = A-weighted decibel
A receptor’s response to a given noise may vary depending on the sound level, duration of exposure, character of the noise sources, time of day during which the noise is experienced, and the activity affected by the noise. Activities most affected by noise include rest, relaxation, recreation, study, and communications. In consideration of these factors, different measures of noise exposure have been developed to quantify the extent of the effects from a variety of noise levels. The Leq, or equivalent energy level, provides an average acoustical or sound energy content of noise measured during a prescribed period, such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 8 hours.
The sound level may not be constant over the measured time period, but the average dB sound level, given as dBA Leq, contains an equal amount of energy as the fluctuating sound level (Caltrans 2013). Community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is an average sound level during a 24- hour day that considers the 24 -hour day divided into three periods. CNEL i s obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA to sound levels in the evening between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and an additional 10 dBA to noise levels in the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The day-night noise level (Ldn) is a 24 -hour weighted average with a 10 dBA penalty applied to the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m . (City of Victorville 2008) . This penalty attempts to account for the fact that nighttime noise levels are potentially more disturbing than equal daytime noise levels. L dn and CNEL are typically within 1 dBA of each other and, for most intents and purposes, are interchangeable.
The dB level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) as the distance from the source of that sound increases. For a single point source, such as a pi ece of mechanical equipment, the sound level normally decreases by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Sound that originates from a linear, or “line” source, such as vehicular traffic, attenuates by approximately 3 dBA per do ubling of distance. Other contributing factors that affect sound reception include ground absorption; natural topography that provides a natural barrier; meteorological conditions; or the presence of human-made obstacles, such as buildings and sound barriers (Caltrans 2013).
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.5.1.2 Noise Effects
Reaction to a given sound varies depending on acoustical characteristics of the source and the environment of the receptor. The A-weighted scale de-emphasizes low-frequency sounds because humans are more sensitive to high-frequency sounds that are more likely to cause hearing damage.
People tend to compare an intruding noise to existing background noise levels. If a new noise is considerably louder or noticeable above existing levels, it is generally considered objectionabl e.
The activity that the receptor is engaged in also affects response. For example, the same noise source, such as constant freeway traffic, may be more objectionable to people sleeping than to workers in a factory. A 3 dBA change is the smallest increment that is perceptible by most receivers, and a 5 dBA change in CNEL is clearly noticeable. Generally, 1 to 2 dBA changes are not detectable, except under controlled laboratory conditions. A sound that is 10 dBA greater than the reference sound is typically perceived as twice as loud (Caltrans 2013).
3.5.1.3 Fundamentals of Environmental Vibration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) describes groundborne vibration as vibration that can cause buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Common sources of groundborne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operation of heavy earthmoving equipment. The effects of groundborne vibration include feel-able movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is typically only a factor in the case of blasting and pile driving during construction. Groundborne vibration related to potential building damage effects is generally related to the peak particle velocity in inches per second. Vibration levels are also given in dB notation, referred to as “vibration dB” (VdB), which compresses the range of numbers required to describe vibration relative to human response (FTA 2018).
3.5.2 Existing Noise Environment
Noise in the Planning Area is primarily characterized by traffic noise, particularly near Interstate 15, US Highway 395, State Route 18 (SR-18), Historic Route-66 (HR-66), and major roadways including Bear Valley Road, Palmdale Road (SR-18), Mojave Drive, 7th Street (HR-66), Amethyst Road, El Evado Road, Green Tree Boulevard, Hesperia Road, and La Mesa Road. Other transportation noise sources include the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Company, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA). The primary stationary source of noise in the City of Victorville (the City) are manufacturing operations such as cement manufacturers that utilize outdoor rock crushing operations (City of Victorville 2008).
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
The City defines sensitive land uses as those where individuals primarily sleep including residences and hospitals as well as those that require quiet and hum an concentration including schools and libraries. Noise sensitive land uses , particularly residences, are currently located throughout the City and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
3.5.3 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address noise.
3.5.3.1 Federal
Federal Aviation Administration Standards
Enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 150, prescribes the procedures, standards, and methods governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. Title 14 also identifies those land uses that are normally compatible with various levels of exposure to noise by individuals. The Federal Aviation Administration considers residential land uses to be compatible with exterior noise levels at or less than 65 dBA Ldn.
Federal Transit Administration Standards
Although the FTA standards are intended for federally funded mass transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and criteria included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) are routinely used for projects proposed b y local jurisdictions.
The manual includes criteria for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration, which are presented in Table 3.5-2, Federal Transit Administration Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria.
Table 3.5-2. Federal Transit Administration Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category
Impact Levels (VdB)
Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime uses 75 78 83
Sources: FTA 2018.
Notes: VdB = vibration decibel
Vibration levels measured in or near the vibration-sensitive use. 1 “Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Noise Control Act
The Noise Control Act of 1972 identified uncontrolled noise as a danger to health and welfare, particularly for people in urban areas. Responsibility for noise control remains primarily a state and local issue; however, the Noise Control Act established a means for effective coordination of federal research and noise control activities (USEPA 2020). The act included a directive that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency develop and publish information on noise levels to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. In 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. The document identifies an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn in indoor residential areas to be adequate to protect indoor activity from interference and annoyance. An exterior noise level of 55 dBA Ldn was identified as the maximum noise level to avoid interference and annoyance in residential areas and other areas in which quiet is a basis for use. A maximum 24-hour average outdoor noise level of 70 dBA Leq is recommended to prevent hearing loss (USEPA 1974).
3.5.3.2 State
California Noise Control Act
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. Section 46050.1 of the act mandates development guidelines for the preparation and content of General Plan Noise Elements.
California Noise Insulation Standards
The California Noise Insulation Standards, found in the Title 24 California Building Standards Code, apply to new multiple -family residential development in areas exposed to ambient noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. New multiple-family development in these areas must reduce exterior to interior noise levels to an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL through insulation, construction, or design.
3.5.3.3 Local
Victorville General Plan 2030
Policies and implementation measures pertaining to noise are contained in the Land Use and Noise Elements of the City of Victorville General Plan 2030. Table 3.5-3, Victorville Land Use Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Compatibility Standards, illustrates acceptable and unacceptable noise levels for various land uses as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and State of California Guidelines.
Table 3.5-3. Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL, dB
Land Use Categories 55 60 65 70 75 80+ --
Residential- Low Density, Single Family, Duplex,
Multi-family, Mobile Home
1 1 2 2 3 4 4
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
1 1 2 3 3 4 4
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 1 1 1 2 3 3 3
Gold Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
1 1 1 2 2 4 4
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Retail
Commercial and Professional
1 1 1 2 2 3 3
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Agriculture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Notes:
1. NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
2. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 1 needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
3. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
4. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Other relevant Noise Element implementation measures include the following:
Implementation Measure 1.1.1.1: Continue to assess projects through the subdivision, site plan, conditional use permit, and other development review pro cesses and incorporate conditions of approval which ensure noise compatibility where appropriate. Implementation Measure 1.1.1.2: Prohibit new single -family residential land uses in areas with a CNEL of 65 dB or greater.
Implementation Measure 1.1.1.3: Require a noise study to be performed and appropriate noise attenuation to be incorporated prior to approving any multifamily or mixed -use residential development in an area with a CNEL of 65 dB or greater. Policy 1.2.1: Include noise mitigation measures in t he design and use of new roadway projects.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Implementation Measure 2.1.1.3: Discourage location of new educational facilities in areas with noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL.
Implementation Measure 2.1.1.5: Continue to restrict noise and require mitigati on measures for any noise-emitting construction equipment or activity. Implementation Measure 2.1.1.6: Reduce speed limits on arterial streets if necessary to lower sound to appropriate levels for adjacent and surrounding land uses. Implementation Measure 2.2.1.1: Place the following condition on all new residential projects in the Planning Area: The applicant/developer shall record an Airport Location Notice, which discloses the direction and distance from SCLA. This notice shall record with the final map, including legal descriptions for all lots, and shall be subject to staff review and approval.
Implementation Measure 2.2.1.2: Place the following condition on all development within the airport influence area, roughly north of Mojave Drive and west of Amargosa Road: The applicant/developer shall record an Avigation Easement, which allows for the continued operation of overhead flights from SCLA. The Avigation Easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits, and shall be subject to staff review and approval.
City of Victorville Municipal Code
Chapter 13.01, Noise Control, of the Victorville Municipal Code , referred to as the City’s Noise Ordinance, establishes criteria and standards for the regulation of noise levels in the City. As outlined in Chapter 13.01 and as indicated in Table 3.5-4, Ambient Noise Levels , maximum ambient noise levels are based on zoning.
Table 3.5-4. Ambient Noise Levels
Zone Time Period Sound Level Decibels (dba)1
All Residential Zones 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 65
All Commercial Zones Anytime 70
All Industrial Zones Anytime 75
Sources: Victorville Municipal Code, Section 13.01.040, Base Ambient Noise Levels Notes: If ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit noted, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
Victorville Municipal Code, Section 13.01.050, Noise Levels Prohibited, states that noise levels shall not exceed the ambient noise levels identified in Section 13.01.040 (Table 3.5-4) by the following dBA levels for the cumulative period of time specified:
1. Less than 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour.
2. Less than 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour.
3. Less than 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
4. Less than 20 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour.
5. 20 dB(A) or more for any period of time.
Victorville Municipal Code, Section 13.01.06, Noise Source Exemptions, identifies the following activities as being exempted from the provisions of Chapter 13.01:
1. All mechanical devices, apparatus or eq uipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work.
2. The provisions of this regulation shall not preclude the construction, operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and recreation projects, public works projects or essential public works services and facilities, including those utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.
3. Activities conducted on the grounds of any elementary, intermediate or secondary school or college.
4. Outdoor gatherings, public dances and shows, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit as required by this code.
5. Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit as required by this code.
6. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law.
7. Traffic on any roadway or railroad right-of-way.
8. The operation of the SCLA.
9. Construction activity on private proper ties that are determined by the director of building and safety to be essential to the completion of a project.
3.5.4 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on noise if it would:
Threshold 1: 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. Threshold 2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to noise that could result from implementation of the project.
3.5.5.1 Threshold 1: Exceedance of Noise Standards
Impact Analysis
Potential impacts related to excessive noise levels from construction and operation of future development proposed through implementation of the General Plan Update are discussed below.
Construction Noise
Construction noise associated with future development under the General Plan Update would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with th e operation of off -road equipment for on -site construction activities and construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, gr ading, excavation, paving). The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and intervening structures. As shown in Table 3.5 -5, Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment, sound levels from typical construction equipment range from 74 to 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the source (FHWA 2008). Noise from construction equipment generally exhibits point source acoustical characteristics. As defined previously, a point source sound decays at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source.
Table 3.5-5. Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Air Compressor 77.7
Backhoe 77.6
Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8
Crane 80.6
Dozer 81.7
Dump Truck 76.5
Excavator 80.7
Generator 80.6
Grader 85
Loader 79.1
Paver 77.2
Roller 80
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3.5-5. Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) Scraper 83.6
Tractor 84
Welder 74
Sources: FHWA 2008.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel
No specific development is proposed at this time; thus, construction phasing and equipment parameters are not available for future development under the General Plan Update. However, typical construction activities that would be a nticipated to occur in association with the development of future land uses and infrastructure would include grading and site preparation; utilities installation; surface improvements, including paving and landscaping; building construction; and external/i nternal building work. Construction of any off -site improvements could require vegetation clearing, underground utility installation, and paving. Standard equipment commonly used for construction projects include dozers, loaders, graders, backhoes, scrapers, and miscellaneous trucks. As stated previously, sound levels from typical construction equipment have the potential to reach 90 dBA Leq.
Section 13.01.060 of the City of Victorville Municipal Code indicates that construction activity is considered exempt from the Noise Ordinance noise level standards. However, future construction may result in a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. New construction would occur in existing developed areas and would have the potential to expose existing sensit ive receptors to a temporary increase in noise levels that may be considered substantial. Therefore, future construction impacts associated with development under the General Plan Update are considered significant.
Operational Noise
Implementation of the G eneral Plan Update would accommodate a range of land uses that have the potential to generate noise that may affect noise -sensitive receptors. These uses include residential development, commercial and office development, mixed-use development, industrial development, and civic and public development.
Residential Development
A variety of residential densities would be accommodated under the General Plan Update, with a focus on mixed-use and higher density residential development. Noise generated from residential uses is generally described as “nuisance noise.” Nuisance noise is defined as intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from sources such as amplified music, barking dogs, and landscape maintenance equipment, that may be disturbing to other reside nts. Nuisance noise impacts are more likely to occur in more densely developed areas where residences would be closer together Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
and where neighbors would be more likely to hear a neighbor’s dog or music. As such, the higher density residential development a ccommodated by the Project would likely experience periodic nuisance noise. However, single-family development would also likely be exposed to occasional nuisance noise.
The Victorville Municipal Code, Chapter 1 3.01, Noise Control, prohibits nuisance noise from exceeding the noise standards at any time. Compliance with the Victorville Noise Ordinance would limit exposure to excessive nuisance noise. Additionally, nuisance noises would be different from each other in kind, duration, and location. Therefore, because the overall effects would be separate and, in most cases, would not affect the receptors at the same time, noise from residential development would not combine and exceed the Noise Ordinance limits. Therefore, nuisance noise from residential development would not result in a significant impact.
Commercial and Office Development
Commercial and office noise sources would be similar to existing conditions with implementation of the proposed project because these land uses currently exist throughout the City; however, development intensity would increase with implementation of the proposed project, especially in the City Center and existing commercial corridors. The future mix of retail and office uses is currently unknown, along with the specific noise producing equipment associated with each use.
The noise level generated by commercial uses on site would vary depending on the specific types of commercial uses that would occupy available space. The exact noise level generated cannot be specifically quantified at this time because of many variables involved. These include the specific land use type, size of equipment, location and orientation of equipment, number and location of loading docks, and parking areas. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the level of noise impact of individual commercial uses at specific locations at this time. Thus, the analysis focuses on typical noise produced from commercial development including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; commercial truck deliveries at loading docks; and parking lots.
The specifications and locations of the HVAC systems that would be installed at commercial or mixed-use buildings are unknown at this time. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the HVAC systems of a mixed -use commercial and residential project would be typical of a community-serving retail and office building. Typical HVAC systems, if unshielded, have the potential to emit continuous noise levels of up to 60 dBA CNEL at a distance of 200 feet from the source (City of Escondido 2012). Areas zoned for commercial and office uses are subject to an hourly noise level limit of 70 dBA as stated in the Noise Ordinance, and residential areas are subject to a noise level limit of 65 dBA dur ing the day and 55 dBA during the night . Future commercial and office development with HVAC system shielding would be required to comply with the noise level limit standards and implement shielding or other measures to reduce equipment noise level as neces sary. Therefore, with required compliance with the noise limits outlined in the Noise Ordinance, impacts would be less than significant.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
In addition to HVAC systems, commercial land uses also have the potential to generate noise from truck deliveries, such as engines idling and beeping from back up warning signals at commercial loading docks. Truck trips to the proposed project would involve deliveries of supplies and products to commercial uses. State law (13 CCR 2485) currently prohibits heavy -duty diesel delivery trucks from idling more than 5 minutes. Therefore, noise from idling would be limited to 5 minutes during truck deliveries. Beeping from trucks would not be continuous and would only occur while the truck is backing up. Given the intermittent and short duration of noise from individual truck deliveries, truck deliveries would not be a source of excessive ambient noise and would be consistent with existing conditions . In compliance with state law and the noise limits outlined in the Noise Ordinance, impacts would be less than significant.
Noise sources from parking lots include car alarms, door slams, radios, and tire squeals. These sources typically range from approximately 51 to 66 dBA at a distance of 10 feet (Gordon Bricken & Associates 2012) and are generally short term and intermittent. Parking lots have the potential to generate temporary noise levels that exceed the sound level limit s established in the Noise Ordinance, depending on the location of the source; however, noise sources from park ing lots would be different from each other in kind, duration, and location. Therefore, the overall effects would be separate and, in most cases, would not affect noise-sensitive receptors at the same time, and noise generated from parking lots would be less than significant.
Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-use development would include multi -family residential development in proximity to commercial or office development. As discussed previously, commercial development adjacent to or within the same property as multi-family residences would be required to comply with the stricter hourly noise level limit for multi-family residential use. Noise sources within future mixed- use development would be similar to commercial and office development discussed previously and would include noise from HVAC systems, truck deliveries, and parking lots. Noise generated from deliveries and parking lot sources would be intermittent and not likely to occur at the same time. Noise from HVAC equipment would be restricted by the performance standards outlined in the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, with required compliance with the Victorville Noise Ordinance including the performance standards for HVAC equipment, impacts would be less than significant.
Industrial Development
Industrial land uses would continue to be accommodated under the General Plan Update and in the SOI. Operation of an industrial facility can generate noise associated with mechanical equipment (pumps, rooftop equipment, condenser units, HVAC units, and pneumatic equipment), operation-related vehicles, speakers, bells, chimes, and outdoor human activity in defined limited areas. Light industrial uses typically include light manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, assembly, and wholesale uses. Heavy industrial uses typical ly include intense manufacturing, Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
warehouse and distribution, assembly, and wholesale industrial operations that generate higher noise levels than light industrial uses. Industrial land uses would generally operate during normal daytime business hours and would not result in sleep disturbance. Additionally, if new industrial development would be adjacent to existing noise -sensitive land uses or an area zoned for commercial or residential use, it would be required to comply with the stricter hourly noise lev el limits for these land uses at the property line. New land uses would be required to meet performance standards for HVAC equipment and implement equipment shielding, as necessary.
Therefore, compliance with the Victorville Noise Ordinance would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Civic and Public Development
Noise sources from civic and public land uses such as schools, civic uses including government facilities, child care facilities, and recreational facilities include parking lot noise, children at play, athletic events, landscape maintenance, school bells, and public address systems. These land uses currently exist throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area. In addition, libraries and civic uses are not typical noise sources except from associated parking lots. Similar to nuisance noises in residential neighborhoods and from commercial and office development, noise sources from these land uses would be intermittent and would be different from each other in kind, duration, and location so that the overall effects would be separate and, in most cases, would not affect the same noise-sensitive receptors at the same time. Parks may result in some nuisance noise; however, these uses would be generally consistent with surrounding d evelopment and normal use is considered exempt from the Noise Ordinance. Events at public facilities would be subject to permit requirements to limit noise exposure. Similar to residential and commercial development, nuisance noise generated by civic and public land uses would also be less than significant.
Permanent Increases in Traffic Noise Levels from Project Operation Future growth in Victorville would have the potential to result in a permanent increase in vehicle noise levels on local roads. As stated in the Transportation Impact Study (Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT] Analysis) prepared for the project (CR Associates 2022), total future VMT would increase compared to existing conditions, although future total VMT per service population would be less than anticipated under the current General Plan. Permanent increases in noise levels may cause roadway noise to exceed the noise compatibility criteria in Table 3.5 -3, or result in a noticeable increase in noise levels on roadways that currently exceed these standards.
Vehicle noise increases would generally occur in the areas where the proposed General Plan Update anticipates an intensification of development. Therefore, the greatest increases in noise level would likely occur in the City center and commerci al corridors. However, development throughout the City would have the potential to result in a significant permanent increase in vehicle noise levels. General Plan Noise Element Policy 1.2.1 requires implementation of noise mitigation Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
in the design of new roadway projects, but does not include specific requirements for development that would increase traffic noise levels. Additionally, the Noise Element includes Implementation Measures that require a noise compatibility study for development of new sensitiv e receptors (Implementation Measure 2.1.1.1) that may be exposed to substantial noise, and mitigation for noise emitting equipment (Implementation Measure 2.1.1.5). However, it does not specifically require evaluation of permanent vehicle noise increases t hat may result from new land development projects. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Noise Incompatibilities with New Sensitive Receptors
In addition to the potential to increase vehicle noise because of growth under the proposed General Plan Update, implementation of the project would have the potential to result in the placement of new sensitive receptors in areas exposed to vehicle noise levels in excess of the City’s noise land use compatibility standards. As part of the General Plan Update, new sensitive receptors would be concentrated in the City center and commercial corridors that are currently subject to relatively higher traffic noise levels from existing activity. New sensitive receptors may also be exposed to noise from existing railroad and industrial operations. Therefore, new sensitive receptor development that is planned under the General Plan Update would have the potential to be exposed to vehicle noise above the normally acceptable lim its. New development accommodated by the proposed General Plan Update throughout the City and SOI would have the potential to be exposed to ambient noise levels in excess of the existing General Plan Noise Element Noise Compatibility Standards. However, the City would continue to implement requirements in the Noise Element that require noise analysis prior to approval of new sensitive receptors that evaluate noise compatibility and implementation of appropriate noise attenuation. Implementation Measure
2.1.1.1 requires a study to be performed where multi-family residential or mixed-use development may be exposed to conditionally acceptable noise levels of 65 dBA or above. This measure implements the California Noise Insulation Standards that require noise attenuation to appropriate interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL . Future development would be required to demonstrate consistency with California Building Standards, including the Noise Insulation Standards for multi-family and mixed-use residences. Most future noise-sensitive development is anticipated to be multi-family or mixed-use development. A significant impact would not occur to these types of developments due to existing regulations. However, additional types of noise sensitive land uses may be accomm odated, including new hospital, educational, or library uses that are also noise sensitive but are not subject to Implementation Measure 2.1.1.1. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would have the potential to permanently increase vehicle noise levels within the proposed project area in excess of the City’s Noise Compatibility Standards. Temporary impacts due to construction activities would also be a potential source of Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
substantial noise. Operation of land uses and placement of new multi-family residential uses accommodated by the General Plan Update would be less than significant with compliance with the Noise Ordinance, Noise Element, and California Noise Insulation Stan dards. However, other new noise sensitive land uses may be exposed to incompatible noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to result in permanent increases in vehicle noise and temporary constructio n noise impacts ; therefore , it would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI -1 would reduce impacts related to increases in vehicle noise level by requiring future development or redevelopment to evaluate potential impact and implement noise reduction measures where feasible. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require noise attenuation features for new noise sensitive land uses exposed to incompatible exterior noise. Mitigation Measure NOI -3 would reduce impacts related to construction noise by requiring construction best management practices to limit noise exposure.
NOI-1: Roadway Noise Measures. Before the approval of building permits and in conjunction with any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for new projects that would result in increased vehicular traffic , project applicants shall be required to complete a site -specific Noise Technical Study to determine if the project would result in a significant increase in traffic noise. A qualified acous tical analyst shall prepare the Noise Technical Study.
If a significant increase in vehicle noise level is identified because of project implementation, the project shall incorporate buffers or other noise reduction measures to the extent feasible to reduce noise levels at affected sensitive receptors to a normally acceptable noise level. Reduction measures that shall be considered include but are not limited to alternative road design, reduced speeds, alternative paving, building retrofits to provide additional noise attenuation, and setbacks or buffers before berms and walls.
A qualified acoustical engineer shall design the noise reduction measures. Where noise reduction measures in the public right-of-way are infeasible, the project applicant shall conduct outreach to potentially affected sensitive receptors to determine the feasibility of noise reduction measures on private property, including a noise barrier or building retrofits. Based on affected receptor response, a qualified acoustical engineer shall determine the feasibility of a noise barrier on private property and/or the extent of required building retrofits. The project applicant shall submit plans to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments for review and approval before the start of any construction. These plans shall demonstrate that the proposed noise reduction measures would reduce traffic noise exposure at sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
NOI-2: New Noise Sensitive Land Use. Before the approval of building permits and in conjunction with any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for new noise -sensitive projects that are not subject to General Plan Noise Element Implementation Measure 2.1.1.1, project applicants shall be required to complete a site- specific Noise Technical Study to determine if the project would be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the applicable normally acceptable noise compatibility standard in General Plan Noise Element Table N-3, Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards. If a potentially incompatible exterior noise level is identified, the project shall incorporate noise attenuation features, such as enhanced windows or insulation, to provide interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or below. The project applicant shall submit the analysis to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments for review and approval before the start of any construction. These plans shall demonstrate that the proposed noise reduction measures would reduce interior noise exposure to 45 dBA CNEL or less.
NOI-3: Construction Noise Best Management Practices. Prior to approval of a grading permit for new development requiring use of heavy construction equipment, th e construction contractor shall demonstrate that the following best management practices would be implemented during construction, as applicable. Best management practices shall be documented on the project’s grading or other construction plan and submitte d to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments for review and approval before the start of any construction.
1. Limit hours of construction to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
2. The construction contractor shall provide written notification to the noise sensitive uses within 500 feet of construction activities at least 3 weeks prior to the start of construction activities informing them of the estimated start date and duration of construction activities.
3. Construction activities that could generate high noise levels, such as pile driving, shall be scheduled during times that would have the least impact on sensitive receptor locations.
4. Stationary construction noise sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from nearby noise-sensitive receptors as possible.
5. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site where noise-sensitive receptors are located.
6. Outfit construction equipment with properly maintained, manufacturer-approved or recommended sound abatement means on air intakes, combustion exhausts, heat dissipation vents, and the interior surfaces of engine hoods and power train enclosures.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
7. Position (to the extent practical) construction laydown and vehicle staging areas as far from noise-sensitive land uses as feasible.
8. If feasible and determined to be an effective option, install temporary noise barriers around the perimeter of the construction area to minimize construction noise.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1 would reduce impacts from vehicle noise by implementing noise reduction measures where feasible. However, roadway noise buffers and additional noise reduction measures would not necessarily be feasible in all circumstances throughout the City and SOI. For example, for a permanent noise barrier to be effective, the barriers would need to be continuous across multiple properties. Because multiple City roadways include existing cross streets and driveways, noise walls would not n ecessarily be effective to reduce traffic noise. Implementation of retrofits of existing residences would require approval from private homeowners. Future projects put forward through implementation of the General Plan Update would continue to be subject to results according to the noise standards under CEQA and the Noise Element but cannot be determined to be less than significant at this time. Therefore, permanent increases in vehicle noise because of the General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impacts related to operation of new development and siting of new sensitive receptors would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulation and Mitigation Measure NOI -2.
Temporary nuisance impacts due to construction activ ities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.
3.5.5.2 Threshold 2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Impact Analysis
Groundborne vibration that would potentially occur through implementation of the General Plan Update would result from construction equipment and, following construction, industrial sources that may result in operational impacts from heavy machinery. Other land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update, including proposed residential, commercial, and civic uses, are not land uses that typically generate groundborne vibration and, therefore, are not addressed below.
Future development may also be exposed to vibration from operation of the BNSF and Union Pacific railroad line.
Construction
The F TA thresholds provided in Table 3. 5-2 are the applicable significance thresholds for groundborne vibration. Construction vibration is subject to the infrequent event criteria because operation of vibration-generating equipment is anticipated to be intermittent throughout the day in the vicinity of an individual receptor. These thresholds are 65 VdB at vibration-sensitive land uses Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
and 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Vibration -sensitive land uses include manufacturing uses, ho spitals, and research operations (FTA 2018). Construction would typically occur during the day and would not disturb sleep. However, daytime construction may result in a nuisance to residences . Therefore, the 75 VdB threshold for nuisance to daytime land uses would apply to all land uses that are not vibration sensitive. The threshold of 65 VdB is applicable to all vibration-sensitive receptors.
Typical vibration levels for typical construction equipment that may be required for future projects proposed under the General Plan Update are provided in Table 3.5-6, Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment . As shown in Table 3. 5-6, all vibration levels from all construction equipment would attenuate to below 75 VdB at 110 feet from the source and vibration from construction equipment other than vibratory equipment would attenuate to 75 VdB or below beyond 65 feet from the source . All vibration levels from all construction equipment would attenuate to below 65 VdB at 235 feet from the source, and vibration from construction equipment other than vibratory equipment would attenuate to 65 VdB or below beyond 135 feet from the source. Table 3. 5-7, Vibration Impact Screening Distances , summarizes the screening distances for potential impacts from vibratory construction equipment and typical construction equipment at vibration-sensitive and non-sensitive uses.
Table 3.5-6. Vibration Source Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Construction
Equipment
Approximate
VdB at 25 Feet
Approximate
VdB at 65 Feet1
Approximate
VdB at 110 Feet1
Approximate
VdB at 135 Feet
Approximate
VdB at 235 Feet
Large Bulldozer 87 75 68 65 58
Caisson Drilling 87 75 68 65 58
Loaded Trucks 86 74 67 64 57
Small Bulldozer 58 46 39 36 29
Jackhammer 79 67 60 57 50
Vibratory Roller 94 82 75 72 65
Sources: FTA 2018.
Notes: VdB = vibration decibel
1 Based on the formula VdB = VdB(25 feet) – 30log(d/25) provided by the FTA (2018).
Table 3.5-7. Vibration Impact Screening Distances
Type of Receptor
Screening Distance for Construction
Requiring Vibratory Equipment (Feet)
Screening Distance for Typical
Construction without Vibratory
Equipment (Feet)
Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses 235 135
Non-Sensitive Land Uses 110 65
Sources: FTA 2018 (for source levels and attenuation formula).
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
As shown in Table 3.5-6, a potential impact would occur if future construction activities would occur within 135 feet of a vibration-sensitive land use or 235 feet if vibratory equipment would be required.
In addition, a potential impact would occur if future construction activities would take place within 65 feet of existing non-sensitive land uses or 135 feet if vibratory equipment would be required. Vibration- sensitive land uses are found throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area, including medical facilities and industrial operations. Because no specific construction is proposed at this time, it cannot be guaranteed that vibration levels would not exceed the thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors.
In addition, the proposed project encourages compact development and redevelopment of underused land in proximity to existing development. Therefore, typical noise levels for construction equipment under the General Plan Update, as shown in Table 3.5-6, could exceed the applicable FTA threshold.
Construction vibration impacts would be potentially significant.
Operation
Industrial land uses would continue to be accommodated under the General Plan Update.
Operation of future industrial facilities cou ld generate groundborne vibration associated with heavy mechanical equipment. New industrial land uses would be subject to the Victorville Municipal Code, Section 16-3.11.010, which allows the City to exclude uses that would result in vibrations that are disruptive to nearby uses. However, the code does not include a specific limit for vibration. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.
Rail Vibration
The BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad operate freight rail services through the City , which generate vibration from freight train pass-by. Based on generalized ground surface vibration curves published by the FTA (FTA 2018), freight trains travelling at 50 miles per hour generate vibration levels of 72 VdB at up to 200 feet from the rail line. Use of the Union Pacific Railroad is infrequent (less than 30 trips per day); therefore, 80 VdB is the applicable threshold for annoyance from this rail line for residences, and 65 VdB is the applicable threshold for vibration sensitive uses. Freight operations would have the potential to gen erate vibration levels of 80 VdB up to approximately 110 feet from the rail line , and 65 VdB up to 350 feet from the rail line . It is unlikely that n ew residences would be located within 110 feet of the rail line; however, new industrial uses or other uses that may include vibration sensitive equipment may be within 350 feet of the line. Therefore, a significant impact related to railroad vibration would occur.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a significant impact related to groundborne noise during construction, operation of industrial equipment, or siting of vibration sensitive receptors near freight operations.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -4 would reduce temporary vibration impacts from future construction activities. Mitigation Measure NOI -5 would reduce vibration exposure from new industrial equipment. Mitigation Measure NOI -6 would reduce vibration nuisance from the siting of new vibration sensitive equipment near freight operations.
NOI-4: Vibration Best Management Practices. Before the start of construction activities that would involve use of a vibratory roller (or equivalent equipment) within 235 feet of a vibration-sensitive land use or within 110 feet of other land uses or the use of typical (not vibratory) construction equipment within 135 feet of a vibration-sensitive land use or within 65 feet of other land uses, t he project applicant shall retain a qualified acoustician to demonstrate that vibration would not exceed the applicable FTA threshold (65 VdB for vibration-sensitive land uses of 75 VdB for other daytime land uses), or shall identify best management practices to be implemented by the construction contractor to reduce vibratio n levels to below the applicable threshold .
The best management practices shall be included in project construction documents, including the Grading Plan and contract with the construction contractor. Practices may include but not be limited to the following:
Use only properly maintained equipment with vibratory isolators Operate equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible Use rubber-tired vehicles as opposed to tracked vehicles NOI-5: Vibration from Industrial Operation. Before the approval of bu ilding permits, project applicants for future development projects that would include vibration -generating equipment shall be required to complete a site -specific analysis to determine if proposed sources of vibration would result in a significant vibration at nearby land uses.
The analysis shall identify the potential sources of vibration, equipment specifications, and evaluate whether vibration would exceed the applicable FTA threshold at surrounding land uses. If significant vibration levels are identifi ed, the analysis shall identify vibration reduction measures to the extent feasible to reduce vibration levels at affected receptors, such as relocating equipment. The project applicant shall submit the analysis to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments for review and approval before the start of any construction.
NOI-6: Railroad Vibration. Prior to approval of building permits and in conjunction with any required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review , if new vibration - sensitive land uses are in close proximity to the railroad, the project applicant shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. If levels of Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-21 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
vibration are detected that exceed the applicable FTA threshold, the acoustic analysis shall recommend site design features, such as setbacks and trenches, and/or required building improvements, such as harder building materials (e.g., steel framing vs. wood framing), to eliminate the potential for train operations to result in levels of vibration that would interfere with proposed operation. The site design features shall be identified on the Final Site Plan and withi n associated CEQA documents as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would reduce groundborne vibration impacts during construction to a less than significant level by minimizing nuisance impacts to affected receptors in accordance with FTA standards . However, feasible alternative construction methods may not be available to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable threshold, particularly for vibration- sensitive equipment in buildings adjacent to construction zones. V ibration impacts would be temporary and would cease following construction. However, this temporary impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would reduce impacts from industrial operations to less than significant by establishing a performance standard for new permanent vibration sources. Mitigation Measure NOI-5 would reduce impacts from freight operations to less than significant by requiring rail vibration to be considered in the design of new vibration-sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.
3.5.5.3 Threshold 3: Aircraft Noise
Impact Analysis
The City contains one airport, the SCLA , in the northwestern portion of the City. The existing SCLA aircraft contours of 70 and 75 dB CNEL remain entirely on airport property. The 65 dB CNEL noise contour extends off airport property to the south. This area is currently undeveloped.
The 60 dB C NEL noise contour extends off airport property to the north, south, and southwest.
The 55 dB CNEL noise contour extends off airport property to the north, south, northeast, and southwest (City of Victorville 2008 ). The City has also adopted a Specific Plan for development near the SCLA. The Specific Plan includes Public/Open Space, Business Park, and Industrial designations for land southeast of the runways. The SCLA Specific Plan establishes policies to ensure SCLA operations are compatible with proximate land uses (City of Victorville 2021).
In addition, policies of the Victorville General Plan 2030 Noise Element, notably Policies 1.1.2 and 2.2.1 and their respective implementation measures, seek to ensure that no conflict or inconsistency between the oper ation of the SCLA and future land uses within the Planning Area occurs. These policies and measures require the City to continue to monitor SCLA operations and Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-22 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
to coordinate these activities into the planning process. Future development would be required to comply with both the SCLA Specific Plan and the Victorville General Plan 2030 compatibility policies. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise during construction activities or operational activities from aircraft noise.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise during construction activities or op erational activities resulting from aircraft noise.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential cumulative impacts relating to noise that could result from implementation of the project. As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, the proposed General Plan Update is inherently cumulative and considers cumulative development that could occur in the Planning Area over a defined time frame. Therefore, the impact analysis of a General Plan project generally constitutes the cumulative analysis. Impacts are summarized below.
3.5.6.1 Cumulative Threshold 1: Exceedance of Noise Standards Cumulative development would have the potential to result in an ambient regional increase in vehicle noise and stationary noise levels, as well as intermittent construction noise. Cumulative development would be subject to regula tions that require compliance with the Victorville Noise Ordinance and General Plan policies, or similar policies in surrounding jurisdictions. Additionally, impacts related to new noise sensitive receptors would be site specific. Development of a new sensitive land use in an area with incompatible existing noise levels would not increase exposure of other sensitive receptors. Existing regional and state regulations would generally limit operational and stationary impacts so that a significant cumulative impact related to development of new noise sensitive land uses would not occur.
However, buildout of the General Plan Update, along with future regional growth, would result in increases in traffic that would cumulatively increase traffic noise. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 would reduce impacts from Project implementation from vehicle noise by implementing noise reduction measures where feasible. While this mitigation would reduce the General Plan Update’s incremental Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
contribution to the cumulative impact to the extent feasible, the General Plan Update would have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce impacts, but not to below a cumulatively considerable level. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.
Construction noise impacts are localized in nature because they are limited to the construction site where construction equipment is operating. Therefore, projects that would be considered for the construction noise cumulative analysis would be projects close to future individual projects. Because projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be spread out over time and throughout the Planning Area, projects are unlikely to overlap and cause a cumulative impact. Therefore, a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur related to temporary construction noise.
3.5.6.2 Cumulative Threshold 2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Similar to noise effects, vibration is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source increases. Therefore, projects that would be considered for the vibration cumulative analysis would be projects close to future individual projects. Because projects implemented under the General Plan Update would be spread out over time and throughout th e Planning Area, projects are unlikely to overlap and cause a cumulative impact. Therefore, a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur related to vibration.
3.5.6.3 Cumulative Threshold 3: Aircraft Noise
Implementation of the General Plan Update would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive aircraft noise through consistency with existing plan requirements. In addition, impacts related to nuisance noise from overflights are site specific and are not cumulative in nature. Therefore, a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur for this issue.
Section 3.5: Noise
Draft PEIR 3.5-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.6 Transportation
This section evaluates the potential for impacts to transportation resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project). The analysis in this section is based on the information in the 2022 Transportation Impact Study ( Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT] Analysis) prepared by CR Associates (Appendix E).
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
3.6.1.1 Existing Circulation System
This section describes the existing conditions for the project as they relate to transportation.
The City of Victorville (the City) circulation system is comprised of freeways and their interchanges, arterial, collector and local streets, public transportation and non -motorized transportation. In addition to these facilities and services, the implementation and management of the circulation system includes parking policies and goods and freight movement.
Located in the heart of San Bernardino County, the Planning Area for the City is approximately 35 miles northeast of the City of San Bernardino and about 97 miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles. Nestled just north of the San Bernardino Mountains and at the edge of the Mojave Desert, the City is in an area known as Victor Valley and commonly referred to as the “High Desert”. The City shares boundaries with the City of Adelanto to the northwest, the Town of Apple Valley to the east, the City of Hesperia to the south and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the southwest and to t he north. There are also portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County nested within the City. The Mojave Freeway (Interstate [I-] 15) and United States Federal Highway (US-) 395 serve as the primary regional connections to other San Bernardino County cities, while State Route (SR-) 18 provides connection to San Bernardino County communities east and west of the City. In addition, major rail routes pass through the City and Southern California Logistics Airport is a commercial airport in place of the decommissioned George Air Force Base.
3.6.1.2 Roadways
The City’s circulation system is comprised of freeways and their interchanges, arterial, collector and local streets, public transportation and non-motorized transportation (City of Victorville 2008).
In addition to these facilities and services, the implementation and management of the circulation system includes parking policies and goods and freight movement.
Four major roadway facilities serve the City: I-15, US-395, SR-18 and Historic Route 66 (City of Victorville 2008).
Interstate 15 is a major north-south corridor having three lanes through Victorville in each direction.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
United States Federal Highway 395 is a north-south highway that passes through the western part of the City. Primarily a two-lane highway, the roadway widens to four lanes north and south of Palmdale Road.
State Route 18 is a four -lane divided street with a continuous left -turn lane in the City along D Street and a raised median with turn pockets along Palmdale Road . The easterly segment of SR- 18 intersects with I-15, and continued west of I-15 at Palmdale Road. SR-18 is a designated Truck Route within the City. SR-18 in the Town of Apple Valley is known as Happy Trails Highway.
Historic Route 66 (National Trails Highway) wa s established in 1926 and extended 2,500 miles from Chicago, Illinois to Los Angeles, California. Today, Historic Route 66 follows the current alignment of I-15 from the City’s southern border to Palmdale Road (SR-18), continues northeast on D Street (Happy Tails Highway) to the northwestern edge of the City.
The City has 21 different street classifications, from two lane, undivided collectors to an eight - lane divided roadway with a raised median , as well as various retrofit street classifications (City of Victorville 2008). The roadways are designated by their primary function and level of mobility.
3.6.1.3 Bicycle Facilities
A majority of the non -motorized facilities include both shared -use and exclusive bicycle use facilities. Shared-use facilities, include shared paths for pedestrians and bicycles, and shared right of ways with bicycles and automobiles.
The City’s bikeway network consists of three types of facilities, as follows:
Class I bikeways, such as ‘bike paths’, provide a completely separated right of way designated for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimum cross flows by motorists. These are shared use paths that may be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non - motorized users.
Class II bikeways , such as ‘bike lanes’, provide a restricted right of way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with permitted vehicle parking and cross flows by pedestrians and motorists. This is a portion of roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, pavement delineation, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Class III bikeways, such as on-street or off-street ‘bike routes,’ provide a right of way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. Under the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Design Standards, Class III bikeways are designated by signage as a preferred route for bicycle use and routes.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.6.1.4 Transit Facilities
The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) provides bus service within the City. VVTA currently operates ten fixed -routes in or through the City. Transit service is provided fro m 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 Am to 8:00 PM on Saturdays.
Daily passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak at the Victor Valley Transportation Center on the north side of D Street between 2nd Street and 6th Street. Amtrak’s So uthwest Chief Liner connects Chicago, Illinois with Los Angeles, California. Amtrak Motor Coach service provides two daily round trips to San Joaquin trains in the City of Bakersfield.
In addition to passenger rail service, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight rail corridor serves the City, with a double main line and lead tracks for industrial users. Existing major inter -model cargo loading facilities in the region are in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
3.6.1.5 Truck Routes
Commercial vehicles exceeding a maximum gross weight limit of 12,000 pounds must generally adhere to truck routes while traveling through the City. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies the following eight current truck routes within the City: (1) Air Expressway, (2) National Trails Highway/D Street, (3) Hesperia Road from Bear Valley Road to D Street, (4) Green Tree Boulevard from 7th Street to Hesperia Road, (5) Mariposa Road from Bear Valley Road to Green Tree Boulevard, (6) Amargosa Road from Bear Valley Road to Palmdale Road, (7) Nisqualli Road from I-15 to Hesperia Road, and (8) Bear Valley Road.
3.6.1.6 Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled
VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. To establish a baseline understanding, Table 3.6-1, Victorville and Region VMT Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis, displays both San Bernardino County Region and City of Victorville VMT per service population for both the current 2008 General Plan and Proposed Project.
Table 3.6-1. Victorville and Region VMT Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis VMT Metric
Base Year 2008 General Plan
San Bernardino
Region Victorville
San Bernardino
Region Victorville
VMT/Service
Population 15.2 13.2 16.1 17.9
Source: Appendix E.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.6.2 Regulatory Framework
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulatory framework adopted to address transportation.
3.6.2.1 Federal
Highway Capacity Manual
The Highway Capacity Manual, prepared by the federal Transportation Research Board, is the result of a collaborative, multiagency effort between the Transportation Research Board, Federal Highway Administration, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The Highway Capacity Manual contains concepts, guidelines, and computationa l procedures for the capacity and quality of service of various highway facilities, including freeways, signalized and unsignalized intersections, rural highways, and the effects of transit, pedestrians, and bicycles on the performance of these systems. Th e procedures from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology were used at intersections where the Highway Capacity Manual is limited in its analysis capabilities.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Section 450.220
Revised in April 1, 2005, the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Section 450.220, requires each state to carry out a continual, comprehensive, and intermodal statewide transportation planning process. This planning process must include the development of a Statewide Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods in all areas of the state.
3.6.2.2 State
California Department of Transportation Standards
The Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining California’s transportation system. Caltrans sets standards, policies, and Strategic Plans that aim to (1) provide the safest transportation system for users and workers, (2) maximize transportation system performance and accessi bility, (3) efficiently deliver quality transportation projects and services, (4) preserve and enhance California’s resources and assets, and (5) promote quality service.
Caltrans has the discretionary authority to issue special permits for the use of stat e highways for other than normal transportation purposes. Caltrans also reviews all requests from utility companies, developers, volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and others desiring to conduct various activities within the State Highway right -of-way. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual, prepared by the Office of Geometric Design Standards (7th edition, updated 2020), establishes uniform policies and procedures to carry out the highway design functions of Caltrans. Caltrans also prepared a Guide for Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002) to provide consistency and uniformity in the identification of traffic impacts generated by local land use proposals.
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which created a process to change the way transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts. Aside from changes to transportation analysis, SB 743 also includes several important changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, including aesthetics and parking.
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the update to the CEQA Guidelines, implementing SB 743 (Section 15064.3). Under OPR’s revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may i ndicate a significant transportation impact. Under the VMT standard, projects within 0.25 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should generally be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Furthermore, under the CEQA Guidelines revisions, for projects other than roadway capacity projects, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, should not be considered a significant effect on the environment. The revisions to the CEQA Guidelines allow a lead agency to elect to evaluate transportation impacts under the revised CEQA Guidelines at any time and made the revised CEQA Guidelines applicable statewide beginning July 1, 2020.
3.6.2.3 Regional
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated metropolitan planning organization for six Southern California counties (Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Imperial). As the designated metropolitan planning organization, SCAG is mandated by the Federal and State governments to prepare plans for regional transportation and air quality conformity. The most recent plan ado pted by SCAG is the 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which was adopted on September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS integrates transportation planning with economic development and sustainability planning and aims to comply with State greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals, such as SB 375. The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHG emissions from autos and light -duty trucks by eight percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels).
Specifically, these strategies are:
Focus growth near destinations and mobility options
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Promote diverse housing choices
Leverage technology innovations
Support implementation of sustainability policies
Promote a green region
Furthermore, the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the state mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita VMT. Some of these tools include center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth area s, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment In February 2020, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) released the SBCTA Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment (SBCTA Guidelines) that address both traditional automobile delay -based LOS and new VMT analysis requirements per SB 743. The SBCTA Guidelines provide local jurisdictions with sufficient information to adopt VMT baselines and thresholds of significance prior to the July 2020 implementation deadline.
San Bernardino County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan The San Bernardino County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP), prepared by SBCTA, revised June 2018, provides regional goals, objectives, and policies, bicycle and pedestrian planning, local jurisdiction bicycle plans, design guidelines, and plan implementation. The NMTP serves as a response to the initiatives to reduce vehicle travel and GHG emissions embedded in California SB 375 and satisfies the State of California requirements of a Bicycle Transportation Plan for purposes of Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account funding.
3.6.2.4 Local
Victorville General Plan 2030
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element of the General Plan is intended to provide guidance to decisions that expand and improve the transportation system for local and regional trips, and to accommodate the diverse transportation needs of the residents of the Planning Area. Furthermore, Circulation Element is intended to specify the City’s policies for coordination of transportation infrastructure planning with planning of publi c utilities and facilities, where joint benefits can be achieved.
Circulation Element goals and policies that pertain to the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Goal 1: Good Mobility – Provide a safe, efficient transportation system that enhances mobility for local residents and businesses, and facilitates regional travel for automobiles and trucks. Objective 1.1: Provide sufficient traffic carrying capacity at intersections throughout the roadway network, to achieve LOS performance standards. Policy 1.1.1: Maintain LOS “D” or better at intersections (as defined in the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual), except in certain high activity areas designated by the Planning Commission, where a LOS E is acceptable. Policy 1.1.2: If a development project would worsen an intersection peak hour LOS to E or worse, it is considered a significant impact that must be mitigated.
If a development project would worsen an already deficient intersection by two percent or more, it is considered a significant impact that must be mitigated. Policy 1.1.3: Require new development and redevelopment projects to bear responsibility for traffic system improvements necessary to mitigate the project’s significant impacts at affecte d intersections, concurrently with construction of such projects.
Objective 1.2: Achieve and maintain mobility goals set forth in countywide CMP, on local CMP segments.
Policy 1.3.1: Participate with Caltrans and SANBAG on the environmental documents for the realignment of Highway 395 through the Planning Area. Policy 1.3.2: Complete the project approval and environmental document for the High Desert Corridor Project.
Policy 1.3.3: Prioritize the General Plan improvements for new interchanges, interchange modifications, new road constructions and road widenings.
Goal 2: Efficient Multi -Model Transportation Network – Meet diverse transportation needs of existing and future residents and businesses in the Planning Area through convenient, safe, multi- modal means.
Objective 2.1: Shall work toward developing an integrated and connected multimodal transportation system of Complete Streets that serves all neighborhoods Objective 2.2: Expand public transit in conjunction with population growth Policy 2.2.1: Require new development and redevelopment projects (public and private), to incorporate needed public transit facilities as identified by the VVTA.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Goal 3: Adequate Infrastructure – Develop and maintain infrastructu re that supports the transportation and circulation needs of the community in a cost -effective and environmentally sensitive manner.
Objective 3.2: Design infrastructure that minimizes impacts to the environment. Objective 3.3: Provide adequate infrastructure improvements in conjunction with new development and redevelopment projects
Policy 3.3.1: Require private and public development projects to be responsible for constructing road improvements along all frontages abutting a public street right of way, in accordance with the design specifications for that roadway.
Such road frontage improvements shall be constructed concurrently with and completed prior to opening of the project.
City of Victorville Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines The City VMT Analysis Guidelines dated June 16, 2020 provides methodology and thresholds for VMT analyses with regard to CEQA for projects in the City. The guidelines also provide screening thresholds to determine if VMT analysis for CEQA is required.
City of Victorville Non-Motorized Transportation Plan
As part of the San Bernardino County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, the City of Victorville Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was developed and approved by City Council in 2011, which designates various corridors, thoroughfares, and facilities to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use.
The plan helps in meeting the goals and objectives of the General Plan and guides the future, orderly development of trails and bikeways, by requiring developers to install the segments adjoining their projects. Supplemental to coordinating and guiding the San Bernardino County’s bicycle and pedestrian plans, programs, and projects, the NMTP for the Victor Valley area includes regional and intra-jurisdictional bicycle connections and pedestrian facilities.
3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on transportation if it would:
Threshold 1: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities Threshold 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) such that a land use project will induce substantial VMT Threshold 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Threshold 4: Result in inadequate emergency access
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.6.4 Methods of Analysis
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
VMT is positively correlated with growth and as the region is expected to grow, VMT is expected to increase. However, where the growth occurs plays a significant role to determine how much the VMT will increase. Growth in areas with access to high -quality transit, a complete active transportation network, and/or complementary land use mixes are projected to be more VMT efficient.
Per the City VMT Analysis Guidelines, the VMT effi ciency for the City is the average VMT per service population. The VMT per service population is described as the daily trips originating from or ended within the study area divided by the total service population (residents plus employees).
The VMT Guidelines also established the following thresholds in determining transportation related impacts: “Thresholds shall be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) future year VMT projections for the City’s General Plan buildout. A project’s VMT generation per service population shall be less than the City’s VMT General Plan Buildout per service population. However, feasible mitigation measures may be identified to reduce the project VMT below the thresholds.” (VMT Guidelines, P. 4) For the purposes of this transportation impact study, a Plan -to-Plan analysis was conducted by comparing the Proposed Project to the No Project Alternative.
3.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation
The following sections address various potential impacts relating to transportation that could result from implementation of the project.
3.6.5.1 Threshold 1: Circulation System Performance
Impact Analysis
Pursuant to Section 21099(b)(2) of the California Public Resources Code, “automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” Therefore, impacts on the City’s roadway network are not considered CEQA impacts pursuant to Section 21099(b)(2). This issue focuses on whether the proposed project conflicts with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to the transportation system. For the purposes of this analysis, a significant transportation impact could occur if the proposed project would conflict with other adopted transportation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies including the City’s Circulation Element.
New development facilitated by the proposed project would increase traffic volumes in the Planning Area. Future development project would be required to comply with City’s Circulation Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Element goals and policies. Specifically, future development projects would be required to bear responsibility for traffic system improvements necessary to mitigate the project’s significant impacts at affected intersections, concurrently with construction of such projects (CE Policy 1.1.3), complete deficiency plans to mitigate near -deficient and deficient intersections to an acceptable LOS or to prevent degrading to a worse LOS (CE Policy 1.1.4), and be responsible for constructing road improvements along all frontages abutting a public street right of way, in accordance with the design specifications for that roadway (CE Policy 3.3.1).
In addition, implementation of the proposed project would in crease demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, which would require the improvement and expansion of the circulation system. The proposed Land Use Element Update and new Environmental Justice Element includes specific policies that support Circulation Element Goal 2 to provide an efficient multi-modal transportation network that meets the diverse transportation needs of existing and future residents and businesses in the Planning Area through convenient, safe, multi-modal means.
Such policies include:
LU-D.5: Promote linkages within and around mixed-use projects and areas using a multi-modal circulation network, including transit, pedestrian sidewalks, paths and paseos, and bicycle and trail networks, to ensure safe, convenient access between uses and to minimize vehicular traffic.
LU-F.1: Encourage infill development, redevelopment of underutilized sites and reuse of existing commercial and industrial buildings before expanding in undeveloped areas within the City to enhance community character, optimize infrastructure investments, support increased transit use, promote non -motorized transportation, and enhance commercial viability.
LU-F.9: Continue to utilize Specific Plans to ensure that new development achieves carefully planned comprehensive communities with a number and variety of amenities, is sustainable, provides a multi -modal transportation network, and incorporates and integrates appropriate General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
LU-H.2: Encourage the provision of m ulti-modal access to activity centers, such as public and civic facilities, commercial centers and corridors, employment centers, schools, parks and recreation facilities, tourist attractions, and transit stops.
EJ-D.2: Work with the VVTA to encourage transit providers to establish, maintain, and increase frequency of routes to jobs, shopping, schools, daycares, parks, and healthcare facilities that are convenient to the southwest of the City, as it lacks walkable transit access and is considered disadvantaged.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
EJ-D.3: Work with the VVTA to increase the frequency of the B -V Link service, particularly during the weekends.
EJ-D.4: Prioritize seeking public funding for the establishment of a transportation fare assistance program for income-qualified households.
EJ-I.2: Prioritize transportation system improvements that encourage walking, biking, and transit use.
EJ-K.3: Work with the VVTA to ensure public transportation is provided from disadvantaged areas to recreational facilities and explore incentives for carpooling and using alternative means of transportation.
In summary, implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes and demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, which would require the improvemen t and expansion of the circulation system. However, the Circulation Element incorporates goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures to achieve the vision of the Circulation Element and to guide the City’s efforts to continue to build and main tain an efficient transportation and circulation infrastructure to support the community development policies.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance , or policy addressing the circul ation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle , and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.6.5.2 Threshold 2: Induction of Substantial Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3(b), an impact is considered significant if a project’s VMT generation per service population would be greater than the City’s VMT General Plan Buildout per service population.
As shown in Table 3.6-2, Victorville & San Bernardino Region VMT Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis, with the implementation of the Proposed Project land uses, including buildout of Proposed Project land uses and the sphere of influence (SOI) area, the study area VMT per service Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
population is reduced from 17.9 under the 2008 General Plan scenario to 17.0 under the Proposed Project scenario.
Table 3.6-2. Victorville and San Bernardino Region VMT Metrics for Transportation Impact Analysis
VMT Metric
Base Year 2008 General Plan Proposed Project
San
Bernardino
Region
Victorville
San
Bernardino
Region
Victorville
San
Bernardino
Region
Victorville
VMT/Service
Population 15.2 13.2 16.1 17.9 15.1 17.0
Source: Appendix E.
Therefore, based on the VMT Guidelines, the Proposed Project VMT per service population is less than those of the 2008 General Plan.
In addition, the Land Use Element update would promote land use and development practices that are consistent with Smart Growth principles. The Land Use Element Update includes the following specific policies to support an efficient, fiscally responsible, and sustainable growth strategy:
LU-H.1: Coordinate the land use and mobility plans and policies to reduce VMT and emphasize walking, biking, use of transit, and other types of low -emission, local-use modes of transportation as viable and affordable alternatives to the use of the personal automobile.
LU-H.2: Encourage the provision of multi -modal access to activity centers, such as public and civic facilities, commercial centers and corridors, employment centers, schools, parks and recreation facilities, tourist attractions, and transit stops.
LU-H.3: Incorporate sustainable and Smart Growth principles in all new developments and when updating existing developments to the extent possible, to minimize adverse impacts of development on air quality, traffic, open space, water quality, energy, and other resources and optimize walkability, quality of life, and community vitality.
Significance of Impact
The project does not conflict and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). Impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
3.6.5.3 Threshold 3: Hazardous Design Features
Impact Analysis
The General Plan Update does not propose incompatible us es that present hazards to travel on local roadways. Buildout of the General Plan Update would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the City and SOI. The specific design and operations of individual future development projects cannot be known at this time. The Circulation Element contains a plan, roadway cross -sections and objectives and policies that are designed to reduce hazards, promote design features for local roadways consistent with City standards and accommoda te projected traffic at local intersections. Future development would be required to comply with the Circulation Element goals and policies specifically r estricting residential driveway access to arterial roadways to locations where a finding can be made t hat such access would not result in a significant safety problem, would not conflict with traffic movements , and would not result in a congestion impact (Policy 1.4.1).
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.6.5.4 Threshold 4: Inadequate Emergency Access
Impact Analysis
Emergency access would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis as the buildout of the proposed project occurs. Buildout of the proposed project would enhance the capacity of the roadway system by upgrading roadways and intersections, when necessary, ensure that the future dedication and acquisitions of roadways are based on projected demand, and implement the construction of paved crossover points through medians for emergency vehicles. Future development under the General Plan Update would be subject to City regulations regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access.
Significance of Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.
Section 3.6: Transportation
Draft PEIR 3.6-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts are less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required.
3.6.6 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
The VMT impact analysis relies on existing and future growth accommodated through the General Plan Update and accounts for the projected growth of the City and SOI. Therefore, the identified transportation and traffic impacts are inherently cumulative. As discussed under Threshold 2 VMT, with the implementation of the Proposed Project land uses, the Proposed Project VMT per service population would be less than 2008 General Plan and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore , the project would not co ntribute to a cumulative ly considerable transportation impact.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations
This chapter addresses the potential for additional consequences related to the implementation of the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project), pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15128 and 15126.2(e). Specifically, this chapter (1) summarizes the environmental effects of the project that were determined not to be significant during the initial environmental review process , (2) discusses the significant and unavoidable environmental effects , (3) discusses the significant and irreversible environmental changes, and (4) discusses growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, which pertain to ways in which the proposed project could promote either direct or indirect growth.
4.1 Less Than Significant Resource Areas
An Initial Study (included as Appendix A of this Program Environmental Impact Report [PEIR]) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guideline s, Section 15063(c), during the environmental scoping process. The Initial Study determined that no impacts or less than significant impacts would lead to environmental effects listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines associated with the following environmental resource areas:
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15128, a brief justification regarding the effects found not to be significant (e.g., the environmental resource areas not analyzed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis) can be found in Appendix A.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
4.2 Significant Environmental Impacts
The Executive Summary and Sect ions 3.1 through 3.6 provide a comprehensive identification of the project’s significant environmental effects, including the level of significance both before and after mitigation.
4.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that could not be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental effects of the project on various aspects of the environment are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this EIR.
These project-specific and cumulative impacts could not be avoided if the project is approved and could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore , they would remain significant and unavoidable. The remaining impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level through the adoption of recommended mitigation measures. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
4.4 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant , irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Generally, a project would result in significant, irreversible environmental impacts if the following would occur:
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses ( e.g., a highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area).
The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project. The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project invol ves the wasteful use of energy).
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafte r unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. In addition, irreversible damage can result from en vironmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
In general, the CEQA Guidelines refer to the need to evaluate and justify the consumption o f nonrenewable resources and the extent to which the project commits future generations to similar uses of nonrenewable resources. In addition, CEQA requires that irreversible damage resulting from an environmental accident associated with the project be evaluated.
Potential physical effects of project implementation on a programmatic level are addressed in Sections 3.1 through 3.6 of this PEIR and Appendix A. Future development in accordance with the project is a long-term, irreversible commitment of vacant parcels of land or redevelopment of existing developed land in the City and its sphere of influence. In general, conversion of parts of the Planning Area from undeveloped land to urbanized uses (paved roadways and graded lots with structures and landscaping) would represent a permanent, irreversible change to the Planning Area.
Project construction and maintenance of future buildings and infrastructure through implementation of the project would require the commitment of energy, natural resources, and building materials. Nonrenewable and limited resources that would be consumed with project development under the General Plan Update would include oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, aggregate, water, steel, and similar materials. No nrenewable fuels would be used by future construction equipment, haul trucks, and worker vehicles. This commitment of resources and energy would be irreversible. Post -construction consumption of nonrenewable resources would include the use of electricity, natural gas, and water by future residents, employees, and visitors. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses dur ing the life of the project. Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the proposed project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.
4.5 Growth Inducement
As required by Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Additional ly, an EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, the stimulation of economic activity in the region, or the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Under CEQA, this growth is not to be considered necess arily detrimental, beneficial, or of significant consequence. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth, directly or indirectly, significantly affects the environment.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
In general, a project could foster economic or population growth in a geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service, the provision of new access to an area, or a change in zoning or General Plan Amendment approval) or economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in revenue base or employment expansion). These circumstances are further described below.
4.5.1 Economic Growth
Economic effects refer to the extent to which a proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic effects can include such effects as the “multiplier effect.” A “multiplier” is an economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. The multiplier effect provides a quantitative description of the direct employment effect of a project and the indirect and induced employment growth. The multiplier effect acknowledges that the on -site employment and population growth of each projec t is not the complete picture of growth caused by the project.
The project would affect the local economy through the construction of new residences that would encourage people to live in the City and would help encourage people to stay in the City to take advantage of the proximity to local shops, restaurants, and other amenities in nearby downtown Victorville. Additional indirect growth can occur as new businesses are established or existing businesses expand, thus creating new sources of employment. Incr eased commercial and residential development typically generates a secondary or indirect demand for other services, such as groceries, entertainment, and medical services, that stimulate economic activity.
In addition, Victorville residents will purchase g oods and services in the Victorville area, which could encourage the creation of new businesses and services and improve the economic viability.
Implementation of the project would enhance the economic potential of the area, which already contains underused residential and commercial land uses. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in direct or indirect inducement of unplanned growth. Moreover, the project is growth accommodating due to the focus on underused residential and commercial land uses.
4.5.2 Population Growth
The project would serve as a comprehensive, long -term plan to document the physical development of the City and sphere of i nfluence. As discussed in Section 2.4.1.2, Proposed Buildout, in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Planning Area population will increase to 231,861 residents by 2045, an increase of 84,168 people compared to the 2020 Planning Area population.
The project is accommodating for continued growth expected in the region and is not necessarily inducing said growth . The project identifies where development may occur and is a plan to accommodate future projected growth and development in the City. While the project will provide for accommodating future growth projections, it does not, in and of itself, serve to induce future growth in the City beyond what is currently projected.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Furthermore, the potential growth in the City under the project consists of infill development and intensification of existing uses in the City and would not result in the urbanization of land in a remote location. Developed areas of the City are served by an extensive network of electricity, water, sewer, storm drain, roadways, and other i nfrastructure sized to accommodate or allow for existing and planned growth. As no new major roads or highways have been proposed to provide new access to the City, the project would not be removing an impediment to growth. Instead, proposed development under the project would serve to accommodate growth that will imminently occur in the Southern California region, as captured by Southern California Association of Governments projections in previous and future updates of its Regional Transportation Plan .
Therefore, the project would not be growth inducing or set new precedent for growth but , rather, would adequately plan for expected growth.
The adverse environmental effects associated with projected growth, such as those resulting from increased traffic and increased demands on services and utilities, are analyzed in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of this PEIR.
4.5.3 Elimination of Obstacles to Growth
Elimination of obstacles to growth refers to the extent to which a proposed project removes infrastructure limitations or provides infrastructure capacity, or removes regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered a growth-inducing effect although not necessarily a significant one. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The project would trigger growth if it would result in infrastructure with excess capacity or if it would remove an obstacle to growth in an area, such as providing infrastructure that was previously not available.
Development under the project would encourage development within proximity to the City center and commercial corridors and near underutilized commercial centers and aim to minimize the expansion of infrastructure. Only minor connections would be needed to accommodate new development. The added land use designations would provide housing in proximity to resident serving uses and close to transit, provide greater flexibility in types of uses to be responsive to market change, and encourage revitalization in underutilized areas of Victorville. Because no new major roads or highways have been proposed to provide new access to the City, the project would not be removing an impediment to growth. Therefore, the project would not result in the elimination of obstacles to growth that would result in growth-inducing development.
Chapter 4: Other CEQA Considerations
Draft PEIR 4-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 5 Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the project objectives while avoiding or considerably reducing any of the significant impacts of the project. In addition, a “No Project” Alternative must be analyzed in the document. CEQA also requires that an environmentally superior alternative be selected from among the alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative with the fewest or least severe adverse e nvironmental impacts. When the No Project Alternative is th e environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]).
To comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is necessary to identify alternat ives that reduce the significant impacts that are anticipated to occur if the project is implemented while trying to meet most of the basic objectives of the project. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a common sense approach. The alternatives shall be reasonab le, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[a]).
5.1 Summary of Impacts
A summary of the environmental imp acts resulting from implementation of the proposed City of Victorville (City or Victorville) General Plan Update (project), as disclosed in Chapter 3 , Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, is provided in Table 5-1, Summary of Impacts of the Project.
Table 5-1. Summary of Impacts of the Project
Issue Area
Proposed Project Impact Determination
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Section 3.1, Air Quality
Threshold 1: Consistency with
Applicable Air Quality Plan LS LS
Threshold 2: Cumulative Increase in
Criteria Pollutant Emissions PS SU
Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors PS SU
Threshold 4: Odors PS LS
Section 3.2, Biological Resources
Threshold 1: Candidate, Sensitive, or
Special-Status Species PS LS
Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat and
Other Sensitive Natural Communities LS LS
Threshold 3: Jurisdictional Aquatic
Resources PS LS
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-1. Summary of Impacts of the Project
Issue Area
Proposed Project Impact Determination
Without Mitigation With Mitigation
Threshold 4: Native Resident or
Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species PS LS
Threshold 5: Conflict with Tree
Preservation Policy or Ordinance LS LS
Threshold 6: Conflict with Habitat
Conservation Plan LS LS
Section 3.3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold 1: Historical Resources PS SU
Threshold 2: Archaeological
Resources PS LS
Threshold 3: Human Remains PS LS
Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources PS LS
Section 3.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 1: Generation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS LS
Threshold 2: Conflict with Applicable
Plan PS SU
Section 3.5, Noise
Threshold 1: Exceedance of Noise
Standards PS
LS (Construction and Noise Sensitive
Land Use)
SU (Vehicular Noise)
Threshold 2: Excessive Groundborne
Vibration or Noise PS
LS (Vibration from Industrial Operation
and Railroad Vibration)
SU (Construction Vibration)
Threshold 3: Aircraft Noise LS LS
Section 3.6, Transportation
Threshold 1: Circulation System
Performance LS LS
Threshold 2: Induction of Substantial
Vehicle Miles Traveled LS LS
Threshold 3: Hazardous Design
Features LS LS
Threshold 4: Inadequate Emergency
Access LS LS
Notes: LS = Less than Significant Impact; NI = No Impact; PS = Potentially Significant Impact; SU = Significant and Unavoidable As shown in Table 5-1, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation to the following environmental issues:
Air Quality: Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutant Emissions Air Quality: Sensitive Receptors
Cultural Resources: Historic Resources
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Conflict with Applicable Plan Noise: Exceedance of Noise Standards (Permanent Increase in Vehicular Noise) Noise: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise (During Construction)
5.2 Project Objectives
The process of identifying potential alternatives involves consideration of the objectives for the project, which are described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and restated below:
1. Guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community’s vision, enhances our community’s quality of life, and provides a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality.
2. Create a balanced lan d use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs.
3. Create an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville.
4. Meet new statutory requirements identified in the Housing Element Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
5. Create strategies to separate sources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality.
6. Promote access to public facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville.
7. Protect Victorville against natural and human -made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention.
5.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected , and should briefly state the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among factors used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR is the failure to meet most of the basic project objectives or inability to avoid significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]).
The following section describes alternatives or alternative concepts that were given consideration by the lead agency but rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
5.3.1 Reduced High Density Residential Alternative
The Reduced High Density Residential Alternative would eliminate the High Density Residential (HDR) land use and replace with Medium Density Residential (MDR ) land uses . HDR Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
development is generally typified by garden apartments and low - to mid-rise multi-family buildings and results in density of 20.1–30 dwelling units per acre. This alternative was rejected from further consideration because the proposed elimination of HDR land uses would make it infeasible to comply with the statutory requirements of the Housing Element Update (2021) and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
5.4 Analysis of Project Alternatives Selected for Evaluation The following alternatives are analyzed in this chapter:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 3: Increased Conservation Alternative
These alternatives were determined to adequately represent the range of feasible alternatives required under CEQA for the project. The No Project Alternative is included, as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), even though it would not meet the basic project objectives .
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are presented below, along with an evaluation of their environmental impacts.
5.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), t he d iscussion of the No Project Alternative must examine the existing conditions and reasonably foreseeable future conditions that would exist if the project were not approved . The No Project/Existing 20 08 General Plan Alternative would leave the existing 2008 General Plan Land Use Element in place and assumes development would occur as designated in the 2008 General Plan land use map (Figure 5-1, No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative). Table 5-2, Comparison of Development Capacity of 2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update, provides a summary of the development capacity under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative compared to the project. As shown in Table 5 -2, future development under the existing General Plan would result in 21,381 more dwelling units in the City and 43,361 more units within t he sphere of influen ce (SOI). In addition, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would result in 18,452,909 fewer square feet of non-residential development in the City but 39,087,464 more square feet within the SOI. The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does not include the proposed HDR land use designation nor the Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC) and Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO). In addition, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative maintains the existing Mixed Use-High Density land use designation and would not incorporate two new Mixed Use designations compared to the project. This alternative would also not update the Safety Element and would not include the creation of the new Environmental Justice Element consistent with current state requirements.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-5 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-2. Comparison of Development Capacity of
2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update
Land Use
Designations
Existing 2008 General Plan1 Proposed Project2
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage
City SOI City SOI City SOI City SOI
Residential1
Very Low Density
Residential 3,071 4,624 NA NA 3,715 4,420 NA NA
Low Density
Residential2 26,151 25,381 NA NA 8,387 4,534 NA NA
Low Density
Residential in
Low Density
Residential Infill
Overlay
N/A NA NA NA 22,356 NA NA NA
Low-Medium
Density
Residential
N/A NA NA NA 2,338 NA NA NA
Medium Density
Residential 2,212 0 NA NA 10,657 52 NA NA
Mixed Density
Residential 183 0 NA NA 700 NA NA NA
High Density
Residential 15,742 98 NA NA 1,274 NA NA NA
Mixed Use3
Mixed Use 715 8,549 32,927 1,407,692 NA NA NA NA
Mixed Use 1 NA NA NA NA 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355
Mixed Use 2 NA NA NA NA 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632
Commercial
General
Commercial NA NA 7,164,574 9,547,516 NA NA 18,825,76
1 1,398,276
Office
Professional NA NA 470,541 0 NA NA NA NA
Industrial
Light Industrial NA NA 2,078,061 4,044,158 NA NA 8,804,565 567,805 Heavy Industrial NA NA 2,067,592 2,062,951 NA NA 6,733,287 NA Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional NA NA 1,081,239 1,068,766 NA NA 529,907 252,866 Open Space NA NA NA 101 NA NA
Greenway/Utility
Corridor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 36,674 15,220 4,835,282 7,166,297 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 Total 84,746 53,774 17,730,215 45,297,378 63,395 10,413 36,183,124 6,209,914 Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-6 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Source: City of Victorville 2008.
Note: SOI = sphere of influence
1 Existing General Plan capacity estimates both the maximum amount of dwelling units and employment square footage that could occur. 2 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density; Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element);Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Similar to the project, the No Project/200 8 Existing General Plan Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) attainment plan. However, the No Project/Existing 200 8 General Plan Alternative would result in greater levels of criteria air pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants (TACs) as the project, cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment, exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and resulting in other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people due to the an increase in residential units and non -residential square footage compared to the project.
Mitigation measures identified for the project would be applicable to this alternative ; however, due to the increase in criteria pollutant emissions and TACs, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does not include changes to Land Use Element policies that encourage infill development and controlled growth within the City boundaries and SOI by directing focused change consistent with Smart Growth principles. In addition, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does include the creation of the Environmental Justice Element and would not include goals and policies that focus on reducing the health risk of disadvantaged communities, such as reducing pollution exposure and improving air quality in the region compared to the project. Under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, air quality impacts would be greater compared to the project and would r emain significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
Under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, biological resources impacts would be greater due to the increase in residential units and non-residential square footage in the City and SOI, compared to the project. A number of special-status plant species and special-status wildlife species are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the City and SOI or are known to occur in the region based on historical data. In addition, sensi tive riparian communities and jurisdictional wetlands are also found within the City and SOI. Federal and state regulations would require future development projects under this alternative to assess and mitigate potential biological resources, similar to t he project. Mitigation measures identified for the project would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be greater Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-7 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
compared to the project. However, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified for the project.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural resource impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc.). Development under th e No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would be greater due to the increase in total development, including residential units and non-residential square footage, compared to the project. The potential to impact archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources would be greater due to the greater development potential of the alternative . In addition, similar to the project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a result of redevelopment and would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be the greater compared to the project but would remain significant and unavoidable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative o peration of the land uses would result in the generation of greater amounts of greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions from direct sources, due to the increase in single-family residential units and non -residential square footage, compared to the project. The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would not include an update to the Land Use Element that promotes more sustainable land use pattern s and would result decrease emission efficiency which would result in an increase in GHG emissions per capita compared to the project. Similar to the project, under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, the City does not have a n adopted qualified Climate Action Plan ( CAP), which is a tool to evaluate the consistency of new growth with statewide emissions reduction standards or effectively enforce feasible mitigation . The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on the importance of adopting a local CAP that meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b), to be considered a qualified CAP that may be used for determining the significance of project GHG impacts under CEQA . Similar to the project, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would be inconsistent with the CAP component of the 2022 Scoping Plan. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable , with no feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate the impact. Therefore, GHG impacts would be greater under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative due to the greater development potential of the alternative compared to the project, and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, impacts related to an increase in permanent ambient noise levels from vehicular traffic and infrastructure improvements would be greater relative to the project due to the greater development potential of the alternative, including Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-8 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
increased single-family residential units and non-residential square footage, compared to the project.
Similar to the project, implementation of the No Project/Existing 200 8 General Plan Alternative would have the potential to result in a significant impact related to ambient noise and groundborne noise during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the project would reduce noise impacts of the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative during construction.
However, feasible alternative construction methods may not be available to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable threshold and this temporary impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative.
Similar to the project, implementation of the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative could result in the operation of industrial facilities that generate groundborne vibration associated with heavy mechanical equipment and place vibration sensitive receptors near freight operations, which would result in a signific ant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures similar to the project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar to the project, the No Project/Existing 200 8 General Plan Alternative Planning Area is located within the airport noise contour for the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA). Future development would be required to comply with both the SCLA Specific Plan and the Victorville General Plan 2030 compatibility policies and would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive aircraft noise during construction activities or operational activities.
Overall, noise impacts would be greater under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative due to the higher development potential of the alternative, compared to the project, and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation
Future development under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would be consistent with applicable goals and policies outlined in the 2008 Circulation Element and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, the project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Victorville General Plan 2030 Circulation Element and would result in a less than significant impact. However, f uture total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population would be greater under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative due to the less sustainable land use pattern that would result in longer trip distances, compared to the project. This impact would be less than significant under the project, but may require mitigation under the alternative. Similar to the project, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would not result in incompatible uses tha t present hazards to travel on local roadways or inadequate emergency access. Similar to the project, future development under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would be required to comply with the Circulation Element goals and policies to reduce hazards, promote design features for local roadways consistent with City standards, accommodate projected traffic at local intersections, and be subject to City regulations Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-9 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. These impacts would be less than significant, similar to the project.
Overall, transportation impacts related to VMT would be greater under the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, compared to the project, and mitigation may be required under this alternative.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
It is important to note that the No Project/Existing 2018 General Plan Alternative does not address topics and issues pursuant to state requirements that have been adopted since the existing General Plan was approved in 2008 including the preparation of the Environmental Justice Element.
The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would not update the Land Use Element to guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community’s vision, enhances quality of life, and provides a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality ( Project Objective 1), nor would it create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs ( Project Objective 2). In addition, it would not include policies to create an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville (Project Objective 3).
The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would make it infeasible to comply with the statutory requirements identified in the Housing Element Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels (Project Objective 4). The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would retain the existing Mixed-Use High Density land use designation, would not promote revitalization in underutilized areas of the City and would not coordinate with the Housing Element Update to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does not include an Environmental Justice Element. Without an Environmental Justice Element, the No Project/20 08 Existing General Plan Alternative would not be able to ensure that strategies are created to separate sources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality (Project Objective 5) and promote access to public facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville (Project Objective 6). In addition, the No Project/Existing 20 08 General Plan Alternative does not include an update to the Safety Element and would no t be able to ensure protection of Victorville against natural and human -made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).
Therefore, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does not fully meet any of the project objectives.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-10 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
5.4.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would remove the proposed Low Density Residential Infill Overlay. As shown on Figure 5 -2, Reduced Density Alternative, development in the area of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay would still occur in accordance with the designated land use and would not result in an increase in density in the core area of the City . Table 5 -3, Comparison of Development Capacity of the Reduced Density Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update, provides a summary of the development capacity under the Reduced Density Alternative compared to the project. As shown in Table 5 -3, future development under the Reduced Density Alternative would result in 22,356 fewer dwelling units in the core area of the City. The Reduced Density Alternative would also include preparation of proposed new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element, similar to the project.
Table 5-3. Comparison of Development Capacity of the
Reduced Density Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update Land Use
Designations
Reduced Density Alternative Proposed Project2
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage
City SOI City SOI City SOI City SOI
Residential1
Very Low
Density
Residential
3,715 4,420 NA NA 3,715 4,420 NA NA
Low Density
Residential2 8,387 4,534 NA NA 8,387 4,534 NA NA
Low Density
Residential in
Low Density
Residential Infill
Overlay
0 NA NA NA 22,356 NA NA NA
Low-Medium
Density
Residential
2,338 NA NA NA 2,338 NA NA NA
Medium Density
Residential 10,657 52 NA NA 10,657 52 NA NA
Mixed Density
Residential 700 NA NA NA 700 NA NA NA
High Density
Residential 1,274 NA NA NA 1,274 NA NA NA
Mixed Use3
Mixed Use 1 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355 Mixed Use 2 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632 Commercial
General
Commercial NA NA 18,825,761 1,398,276 NA NA 18,825,761 1,398,276 Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-11 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-3. Comparison of Development Capacity of the
Reduced Density Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update Land Use
Designations
Reduced Density Alternative Proposed Project2
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage
City SOI City SOI City SOI City SOI
Industrial
Light Industrial NA NA 8,804,565 567,805 NA NA 8,804,565 567,805 Heavy Industrial NA NA 6,733,287 NA NA NA 6,733,287 NA
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional NA NA 529,907 252,866 NA NA 529,907 252,866 Open Space NA 101 NA NA NA 101 NA NA
Greenway/Utility
Corridor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 Total 41,039 10,413 36,183,124 6,209,914 63,395 10,413 36,183,124 6,209,914 Notes: SOI = sphere of influence
Buildout assumptions for 2045 are inferred from SCAG’s 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020).
1 Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element). 2 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density.
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD attainment plan. In addition, similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would include the proposed Environmental Justice Element that includes policies that focus on reducing the health risk of disadvantaged communities, such as reducing pollution exposure and improving air quality in the region.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 22,356 fewer dwelling units compared to the project and would result in reduced impacts related to an increase in criteria pollutants from construction activities and operation, exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. However , it cannot be guaranteed that site -specific analysis and associated reduction measures would fully reduce construction and operational impacts. Therefore, temporary increases in criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and permanent increases in criteria pollutant emissions from project operation would be significant and unavoidable . Similar to the project, this alternative has the potential to result in odor emissions during operation of some future projects because development under this alternative could place sensitive receptors near an Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-12 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
existing odor source, such as industrial opera tions or wastewater treatment plant and would also accommodate new industrial land uses that would have the potential to produce objectionable odors during industrial processes and manufacturing. Mitigation measures identified for the project would be appl icable to this alternative , although impacts to criteria source pollutants and TAC emissions during operation would not be fully mitigated. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts compared to the project, but impacts to criteria source pollutants and TAC emissions during operation would remain significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 22,356 fewer dwelling units compared to the project due to the removal of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay .
However, development in the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay area would still occur in accordance with the designated land use including commercial, residential, and public and institutional and the potential for impacts to biological resources would still occur from development of these uses . Mitigation measures identified for the project to reduce impacts to biological resources such as pre-construction nest surveys, and preparation of aquatic resource delineation would be applicable to this alternative. Furthermore, the open space and park areas would remain similar under this alternative, compared to the project. Therefore, under the Reduced Density Alternative, imp acts to biological resources would be slight reduced compared to the project but would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures similar to the project.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural resourc e impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc.). Development under the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 22,356 fewer dwelling units compared to the project due to the removal of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay . The potential to impact archaeological resources would be similar as development would still occur in accordance with the designed land uses including commercial, residential, and public and institutional . In addition, similar to the project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a re sult of redevelopment and those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as mitigation measures would not adequately replace the demolished structures and would not reasonably mitigate the impacts of the demolition to less than significant because it would no longer convey its historical significance .
Therefore, under the Reduced Density Alternative, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be the reduced slightly compared to the project and those impacts would be reduced but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-13 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the Reduced Density Alternative , operation of the land uses would result in less GHG emissions from direct sources including emission during construction and operation emissions including vehicle emissions , due to the development of 22,356 fewer residential dwelling units compared to the project. Similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would include an update to Land Use Element that promotes more sustainable land use patterns. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on the importance of adopting a local CAP that meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b), to be considered a qualified CAP that may be used for determining the significance of project GHG impacts under CEQA. The City does not have an adopted qualified CAP, which is a tool to evaluate the consistency of new growth with statewide emissions reduction standards or effectively enforce feasible mitigation. Similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be inconsistent with the CAP component of the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not be able to demonstrate consistency with this requirement. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative. Therefore, overall GHG impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Density Alternative, compared to the project, but impacts associated with consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, impacts related to an increase in permanent ambient noise levels as a result of vehicular traffic and infrastructure improvements would be less relative to the project due to the reduction in dwelling units compared to the project in the City center from removal of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay. However similar to the project, future development throughout the City would have the potential to result in a significant permanent increase in vehicle noise levels. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the project would reduce impacts from vehicle noise by implementing noise reduction measures where feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the project, implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would have the potential to result in a potentially significant impact related to ambient noise and groundborne noise during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the project would reduce impacts during construction. However, feasible alternative construction methods may not be available to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable threshold and this temporary impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the project, implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative could resu lt in the operation of industrial facilities, which could generate groundborne vibration associated with heavy mechanical equipment and place vibration sensitive receptors near freight operations, which would result in a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant, similar to the project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-14 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
In addition, similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative Planning Area is located within the airport noise contour for the SCLA. Future development would be required to comply with both the SCLA Specific Plan and the Victorville General Plan 2030 compatibility policies and would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise during construction activities or operational activities resulting from aircraft noise. Therefore, noise impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Density Alternative, compared to the project, and would remain significant and unavoidable for excessive vehicular noise and construction vibration.
Transportation
Similar to the project, future development under the Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with applicable goals and policies outlined in the current Circulation Element and impacts would be less than significant. Future total VMT per service population would be slighting higher under the Reduced Density Alternative due to the reduction in residential dwelling units in the City core . Similar to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not allow development of incompatible uses that present hazards to travel on local roadways and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Future development would be required to comply with the Circulation Element goals and policies to reduce hazards, p romote design features for local roadways consistent with City standards and accommodate projected traffic at local intersections and would be subject to City regulations regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. Therefore, transportation impacts would be greater under the Reduced Density Alternative, compared to the project.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Reduced Density Alternative would not meet Project Objective 4 because the removal of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay would not provide the City the opportunity to incentivize infill housing on vacant lands in order to provide additional housing opportunities and affordability levels as part of the statutory requirements of the Housing Element . The Reduced Density Alternative would include an update to the Land Use Element that would guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community’s vision, enhances our community’s quality of life however without the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay it would not provide a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality (Project Objective 1). In addition, the Reduced Density Alternative would create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s comm erce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs but not its future housing needs with the removal of the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay (Project Objective 2) and create an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville ( Project Objective 3). In addition, the Reduced Density Alternative would include the creation of the Environmental Justice Element and create strategies to separate sources of pollution from sensitive la nd uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality ( Project Objective 5) and promote access to public Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-15 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville ( Project Objective 6). In addition, the Reduced Density Alternative would include the update to the Safety Element and policies to protect Victorville against natural and human -made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).
5.4.3 Alternative 3: Increased Conservation Alternative The Increased Conservation Alternative would increase open space and greenways by removing portions of heavy and light industrial land uses in the northern areas of the City and designating those areas as open space (Figure 5-3, Increased Conservation Alternative). Table 5-4, Comparison of Development Capacity of the Increased Conservation Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update, provides a summary of the development capacity under the Increased Conservation Alternative compared to the project. The Increased Conservation Alternative would result in 803.48 acres of additional open space in the City and 42.01 acres of additional open space in the SOI compared to the project. As shown in Table 5-4, the increase in open space would result in a reduction of 4,515,648 square feet of light and heavy industrial uses. The Increased Conservation Alternative would also include preparation of proposed new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element, similar to the project.
Table 5-4. Comparison of Development Capacity of the
Increased Conservation Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update Land Use
Designations
Increased Conservation Alternative Proposed Project2
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage
City SOI City SOI City SOI City SOI
Residential1
Very Low
Density
Residential
3,715 4,420 NA NA 3,715 4,420 NA NA
Low Density
Residential2 8,387 4,534 NA NA 8,387 4,534 NA NA
Low Density
Residential in
Low Density
Residential Infill
Overlay
22,356 NA NA NA 22,356 NA NA NA
Low-Medium
Density
Residential
2,338 NA NA NA 2,338 NA NA NA
Medium Density
Residential 10,657 52 NA NA 10,657 52 NA NA
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-16 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-4. Comparison of Development Capacity of the
Increased Conservation Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update Land Use
Designations
Increased Conservation Alternative Proposed Project2
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Footage
City SOI City SOI City SOI City SOI
Mixed Density
Residential 700 NA NA NA 700 NA NA NA
High Density
Residential 1,274 NA NA NA 1,274 NA NA NA
Mixed Use3
Mixed Use 1 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355 Mixed Use 2 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632 Commercial
General
Commercial NA NA 18,825,76
1 1,398,276 NA NA 18,825,76
1 1,398,276
Industrial
Light Industrial NA NA 8,165,322 265,716 NA NA 8,804,565 567,805 Heavy Industrial NA NA 3,158,971 NA NA NA 6,733,287 NA
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional NA NA 529,907 252,866 NA NA 529,907 252,866 Open Space NA 101 NA NA NA 101 NA NA
Greenway/Utility
Corridor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 Total 63,395 10,413 31,969,565 5,907,825 63,395 10,413 36,183,124 6,209,914 Notes:
Buildout assumptions for 2045 are inferred from SCAG’s 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020).
1 Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element). 2 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density.
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the MDAQMD attainment plan. In addition, similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative would prepare the Environmental Justice Element that includes policies that focus on reducing the health risk of disadvantaged communities, such as reducing pollution exposure and improving air quality in the region.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-17 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The Increased Conservation Alternative would result in a reduction of heavy and light industrial land uses in the northern areas of the City, compared to the project. The Increased Conservation Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to an increase in criteria pollutants from construction activities and operation, exposing sensitive receptors to substantia l pollutant concentrations, and resulting in other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people due to the reduction in industrial development, which is known to result in stationary sources of pollutant emissions. While these impacts would be reduced, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because it cannot be guaranteed that site-specific analysis and associated reduction measures would fully reduce construction and operational impacts and impacts from siting new receptors near existing facilities would remain significant because not all potential sources of TAC emissions would be subject to new source review. In addition, similar to the project, this alternative has the potential to result in odor emissions du ring operation of some future projects , similar to the project. Mitigation measures identified for the project would be applicable to this alternative; however, impacts associated with criteria source pollutants and TAC emissions during operatio n would not be fully mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, the Increased Conservation Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts compared to the project; however, air quality impacts associated with criteria source pollutants and TAC emissions during operation would remain significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
The Increased Conservation Alternative would result in an increase of 803.48 acres of open space in the City and an increase of 42.01 acres of open space in the SOI. As shown in Table 5 -4, the increase in open space would result in 4,515,648 fewer square feet of light and heavy industrial uses. A number of special -status plant species and special -status wildlife species are known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the City and SOI or are known to occur in the region based on historical data. Sensitive riparian communities and jurisdictional wetlands are also found within the City and SOI. Impacts to these biological resources would be reduced under the Increased Conservation Alternative due to reduced industial development and increased open space areas in the City and SOI. Federal and state regulations would require future development projects to assess and mitigate potential biological resources impacts. Mitigation measures identified for the project would be applicable to this alternative. Therefore, under the Increased Conservation Alternative, impacts to biological resources would be reduced due to reduced industial development and increased open space areas in the City and SOI , compared to the project. Impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, similar to the project.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Increased Conservation Alternative would result in an increase of 803.48 acres of open space in the City and an increase of 42.01 acres of open space in the SOI. As shown in Table 5 -4, the increase in open space would result in 4,515,648 fewer square feet of light and heavy industrial Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-18 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
uses. Cultural resource impacts are primarily associated with potential ground disturbance and development of previously undisturbed areas, or impacts to potential historic structures (building additions, demolition, etc .). Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be reduced under the Increased Conservation Alternative due to reduced industial development and increased open space areas in the City and SOI, which would result in less ground disturbance. In addition, similar to the project, this alternative would have the potential to impact cultural and tribal cultrual resources as a result of redevelopment and those impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of available mitigation meas ures. Similar to the project, this alternative would have the potential to impact historic buildings as a result of redevelopment and those impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as mitigation measures would not adequately replace the demolished structures and would not reasonably mitigate the impacts of the demolition to less than significant because it would no longer convey its historical significance even with implementation of available mitigation measures. Therefore, under the Increased Conservation Alternative, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be the reduced compared to the project but would remain significant and avoidable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the Increased Conservation Alternative, additional open space (803.48 acres in the City and
42.01 acres in the SOI) would be added to the northern portion of the City and 4,515,648 fewer square feet of light and heavy industrial uses would be developed, compared to the project. Under this alternative, operation of proposed land uses would result in less GHG emissions from direct sources including motor vehicles and truck trips, due to the decrease in industrial uses and increase in open space compared to the project. Similar to the project, the Increased Conservatio n Alternative would include an update to the Land Use Element that promotes more sustainable land use patterns and would result in a similar GHG emissions per capita compared to the project. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on the importance of adopting a loc al CAP that meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5(b), to be considered a qualified CAP that may be used for determining the significance of project GHG impacts under CEQA. The City does not have an adopted qualified CAP which is a tool to evaluate the consistency of new growth with statewide emissions reduction standards or effectively enforce feasible mitigation. Similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative would be inconsistent with CAP requirement of the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not be able to demonstrate consistency with this requirement .
The impact would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, similar to the project.
Therefore, GHG impacts would be reduced under the Increased Co nservation Alternative compared to the project; however, impacts associated with conformance with the 2022 Scoping Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-19 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Noise
Under the Increased Conservation Alternative, impacts related to an increase in permanent ambient noise levels as a result of vehicular traffic and infrastructure improvements would be less relative to the project due to the reduction industrial uses compared to the project. However, similar to the project, future development in other areas o f the City would have the potential to result in a significant permanent increase in vehicle noise levels. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts from vehicle noise by implementing noise reduction measures where feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the project, implementation of the Increased Conservation Alternative would have the potential to result in a significant impact related to ambient noise and groundborne noise during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the project would reduce impacts during construction. However, feasible alternative construction methods may not be available to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable threshold and this temporary impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Under the Increased Conservation Alternative, groundborne vibration impacts associated with heavy mechanical equipment at industrial facilities would be reduced compared to the project due to the reduction in industrial land uses . However, similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative could place vibration sensitive receptors near freight operations. Similar to the project, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.
In addition, similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative Planning Area is located within the airport noise contour for the SCLA. Future development would be required to comply with both the SCLA Specific Plan and the Victorville General Plan 2030 land use compatibility policies and would not expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive aircraft noise during construction activities or operational activities. Therefore, overall noise impacts would be reduced compared to the project, reduced under the Increased Conservation Alternative compared to the project; however, impacts to vehicular noise and construction vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation
Similar to the project, future development under the Increased Conservation Alternative would be consistent with applicable goals and policies outlined in the current Circulation Element and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, future total VMT per service population would be reduced under the Increased Conservation Alternative due to the reduction in industrial uses and associated truck trips. Similar to the project, the Increased Conservation Alternative does not propose incompatible uses that present hazards to travel on local roadways and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Future development would be requ ired to comply with applicable Circulation Element goals and policies to reduce hazards, promote design features for local Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-20 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
roadways consistent with City standards, accommodate projected traffic at local intersections, and would be subject to City regulatio ns regarding street design, site access, and internal emergency access. Therefore, transportation impacts would be reduced under the Increased Conservation Alternative, compared to the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Increased Conservation Alternative would not meet Project Objective 1 as it would not, to the same degree as the project, provide a mix of land uses that promote economic vitality due to the reduction in industrial development capacity. The Increased Conservation Alternative would also not meet Project Objective 2, as it would not create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social , and health needs due to the reduction in industrial development capacity within the Planning Area compared to the project.
The Increased Conservation Alternative would cr eate an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville (Project Objective 3) and would meet new statutory requirements identified in the Housing Element Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels (Project Objective 4).
In addition, the Increased Conservatio n Alternative would include the creation of the Environmental Justice Element and create strategies to separate sources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality ( Project Objective 5) and promote ac cess to public facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville (Project Objective 6). In addition, the Increased Conservation Alternative would include the update to the Safety Element and policies to protect Victorville against natural and human-made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative, which is the alternative having the potential for the fewest environmental impacts, from among the range of reasonable alternative that are evaluated. Table 5-5, Comparison of Potenti ally Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Project, provides a summary comparison of the alternatives with the project to highlight if each alternative would result in a similar, increased or decreased impact compared to the project. In addition, Tab le 5-6, Ability of Project Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives , provides a summary comparison of the alternatives with the project to determine if each alternative would meet the objectives of the project.
As shown in Table 5 -5, the level of environ mental impacts associated with the Increased Conservation Alternative is overall less than the project. This alternative would reduce impacts to Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-21 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Transportation. Therefore, the Increased Conservation Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, although it would only meet five of the seven project objectives.
Table 5-5. Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Project
Impact
Proposed Project Alternatives
Without
Mitigation With Mitigation
No Project/
Existing 2008
General Plan
Reduced
Density
Increased
Conservation
Section 3.1, Air Quality
Threshold 1: Consistency with
Applicable Air Quality Plan LS LS = = =
Threshold 2: Cumulative
Increase in Criteria Pollutant
Emissions
PS SU > < <
Threshold 3: Sensitive
Receptors PS SU > < <
Threshold 4: Odors PS LS > < <
Section 3.2, Biological Resources
Threshold 1: Candidate,
Sensitive, or Special-Status
Species
PS LS > < <
Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat
and Other Sensitive Natural
Communities
LS LS = < <
Threshold 3: Jurisdictional
Aquatic Resources PS LS > < <
Threshold 4: Native Resident or
Migratory Fish or Wildlife
Species
PS LS > < <
Threshold 5: Conflict with Tree
Preservation Policy or
Ordinance
LS LS = = =
Threshold 6: Conflict with
Habitat Conservation Plan LS LS = = =
Section 3.3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold 1: Historical
Resources PS SU > < <
Threshold 2: Archaeological
Resources PS LS > < <
Threshold 3: Human Remains PS LS > < <
Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural
Resources PS LS > < <
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-22 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-5. Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives to the Project
Impact
Proposed Project Alternatives
Without
Mitigation With Mitigation
No Project/
Existing 2008
General Plan
Reduced
Density
Increased
Conservation
Section 3.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 1: Generation of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS LS > < <
Threshold 2: Conflict with
Applicable Plan PS PS = = =
Section 3.5, Noise
Threshold 1: Exceedance of
Noise Standards PS
LS
(Construction
and Noise
Sensitive Land
Use)
SU (Vehicular
Noise)
> < <
Threshold 2: Excessive
Groundborne Vibration or Noise PS
LS (Vibration
from Industrial
Operation and
Railroad
Vibration).
= < <
Threshold 3: Aircraft Noise LS LS = = =
Section 3.6, Transportation
Threshold 1: Circulation System
Performance LS LS = = =
Threshold 2: Induction of
Substantial Vehicle Miles
Traveled
LS LS > < <
Threshold 3: Hazardous Design
Features LS LS = = =
Threshold 4: Inadequate
Emergency Access LS LS = = =
Notes: LS = Less than Significant Impact; NI = No Impact; PS = Potentially Significant Impact; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-23 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5-6. Ability of Project Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives Project Objectives
Ability of Alternatives to Meet the Project Objectives
No Project/Existing 2018
General Plan Reduced Density Increased Conservation
Guide and accommodate future
growth in Victorville in a manner that
achieves the community’s vision,
enhances our community’s quality
of life, and provides a mix of land
uses that promote sustainability and
economic vitality.
No Partial No
Create a balanced land use pattern
to accommodate Victorville’s future
housing, commerce, industry,
recreation and open space,
education, employment, social, and
health needs.
No Partial No
Create an aesthetically pleasing
community by promoting a
distinctive identity for Victorville.
Yes Yes Yes
Meet new statutory requirements
identified in the Housing Element
Update and ensure opportunities for
a variety of housing types and
affordability levels.
No No Yes
Create strategies to separate sources
of pollution from sensitive land uses to
reduce pollution exposure and
improve regional air quality.
No Yes Yes
Promote access to public facilities
and services by developing
complete streets concepts
throughout Victorville.
No Yes Yes
Protect Victorville against natural and
human-made disasters by
emphasizing hazard reduction through
land use and development restrictions
and promoting accident prevention.
No Yes Yes
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-24 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 8/18/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 5\F igure5_1_NoProjectAlt.mxd UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
£¤66
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
GPLU
Very Low Density Residential (up to 2 ud/ac)
Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (6-12 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (12.1-20 du/ac)
High Density Residential (20.1-30 du/ac)
Mixed Density Residential (1-15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Open Space
Public/Institutional
Specific Plan
No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative
Source: City of Victorville 2022. ESRI 2022.
Figure 5-1
±
0 21
Miles
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-26 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 8/18/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 5\F igure5_2_ReducedDensity.mxd Adelanto
Hesperia
UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
£¤66
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
GPLU Overlays
Health & Wellness Overlay (up to 30
GPLU
Very Low Density Residential (up to 2
Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (6-12
Medium Density Residential (12.1-20
High Density Residential (20.1-30
Mixed Density Residential (1-15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 1 (up to 15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 2 (15.1-30 du/ac)
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Open Space
Greenway/Utility Corridor
Greenway/Utility Corridor PC
Public/Institutional
Specific Plan
Reduced Density Alternative
Source: Draw Tap GIS 2022. ESRI 2022.
Figure 5-2
±
0 21
Miles
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-28 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Date: 8/18/2022 - Last saved by: Randy.Deodat - Path: C:\GIS\Projects\City of Victorville\GeneralPlanUpdate\Map Docs\EIR\Section 5\F igure5_3_ConservationAlt.mxd UV18
£¤395
§¨¦15
£¤66
Victorville General Plan Update
City of Victorville
Victorville Sphere of Influence
GPLU Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay (up to 9 du/ac)
Health & Wellness Overlay (up to 30 du/ac)
GPLU
Very Low Density Residential (up to 2 ud/ac)
Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (6-12 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (12.1-20 du/ac)
High Density Residential (20.1-30 du/ac)
Mixed Density Residential (1-15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 1 (up to 15 du/ac)
Mixed-Use 2 (15.1-30 du/ac)
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Open Space
Greenway/Utility Corridor
Greenway/Utility Corridor PC
Public/Institutional
Specific Plan
Increased Conservation Alternative
Source: Draw Tap GIS 2022. ESRI 2022.
Figure 5-3
±
0 21
Miles
Chapter 5: Alternatives
Draft PEIR 5-30 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 6: List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted
Draft PEIR 6-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 6 List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted
This chapter lists the lead agency and consultants who prepared this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and technical reports and the agencies that provided information used in the preparation of this PEIR.
6.1 Environmental Impact Report Preparation
6.1.1 Lead Agency
City of Victorville
Scott Webb, City Planner
Alex Jauregui, Senior Planner
Melissa Nelson
6.2 Lead Consultant
Harris & Associates
Dima Galkin, Senior Project Manager
Nathaniel Cayabyab, Analyst
Michael Rupić, Sustainability Analyst
Irlanda Martinez, Project Manager
CityPlace Planning, Inc.
Claudia Tedford, AICP, Principal
Patricia Bluman, Senior Associate
6.2.1 Environmental Planning
Harris & Associates
Ryan Binns, PMP, ENV SP, Project Director/Technical Reviewer Kristin Blackson, PMP, Senior Project Manager
Kelsey Hawkins, Associate/Deputy Project Manager
Esther Daigneault, Senior Environmental Analyst
Emily Mastrelli, Senior Biologist
Chapter 6: List of Preparers and Agencies Consulted
6-2 September 2022 Draft PEIR
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Katie Laybourn, Biologist/Environmental Analyst
Sharon Toland, Senior Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Specialist Randy Deodat, GIS Analyst
Lindsey Messner, Technical Editor
6.2.2 Technical Consultants
Red Tail Environmental
Shelby Castells, Senior Project Manager
Spencer Bietz, Senior Archaeologist
Chen Ryan Associates
Monique Chen, PE, Principal
Jonathan Sanchez, PE, Traffic Engineer
Phuong Nguyen, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer
Chapter 7: References
Draft PEIR 7-1 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Chapter 7 References
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report.
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
Section 3.1: Air Quality
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
CARB. 2022a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” Accessed September 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health.
CARB. 2022b. “Top 4 Summary.” iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Accessed September 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
County of San Bernardino. 2019. San Bernardino Countywide Draft Plan Draft Program EIR. June.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration ). 2013. Hazard Alert – Diesel Exhaust/Diesel Particulate Matter. January.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2015. Amicus Curiae Brief of South Coast Air Quality Management District. April. Accessed September 2022. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist- 041315.pdf.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. April. Accessed September 2022. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7-s219783-ac-san-joaquin-valley-unified-air- pollution-control-dist-041315.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. “Basic Information About Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Pollution.” Last updated September 8. Accessed September 2022. https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor- air-pollution#What%20is%20CO.
USEPA. 2019a. “Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Pollution.” Last updated June 13. Accessed September 2022. https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution.
USEPA. 2019b. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” Last updated April 2. Accesse d September 2022 . https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics#what%20is%20so2.
USEPA. 2021. “Ground-Level Ozone Basics.” Last updated January 14. Accessed September 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics#formation.
Chapter 7: References
Draft PEIR 7-2 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 3.2: Biological Resources
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1980. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended. Accessed September 2022. https://eplan ning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/ 66949/82080/96344/CDCA_Plan.pdf.
BLM. 2004. Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the West Mojave Plan – A Habitat Conservation Plan and California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment, Volumes 1 and 2. Final. B LM/CA/ES-2004-005 + 1790 -1600. Accessed September 2022. https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/72544/97517/117675/wemo_plan _vol-1_2004.pdf.
Calflora. 2022. “Information on Wild California Plants.” Database. Accessed September 2022. https://www.calflora.org/.
CDFW. 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), RareFind 5, commercial version.
Accessed September 2022. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
CDFW. 2022b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Database. Accessed September 2022. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/.
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
Online edition, v9-01 1.5. Accessed September 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. October.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
Accessed September 2022. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
Section 3.3: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
National Park Service (NPS). 2022. Roots of the National Historic Landmarks Program. Accessed September 2022. https://www.nps.gov/articles/roots -of-the-national-historic-landmarks- program.htm.
NPS. 2022. National Register Bulletin 15.
Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Garnder, and Mark W. Allen. 2007. Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Prehistory Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. Alta Mira Press, Plymouth, U.K.
Section 3.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.
Chapter 7: References
Draft PEIR 7-3 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May.
CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA. November 2017.
CARB. 2022. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Sacramento, CA. May 10, 2022.
City of Victorville. 2015. City of Victorville Climate Action Plan. September.
City of Victorville. 2020. Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) Specific Plan Amendment (PLAN19-00004) Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report. December 2020.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2025 -2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal. September 3.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. Last updated on May 16, 2022. Accessed September 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/ overview-greenhouse-gases#CO2-references.
Section 3.5: Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September.
City of Escondido. 2012. Escondido General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Final.
April 23. Accessed March 2021. https://www.escondido.org/general-plan-update.aspx.
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
City of Victorville. 2021. Southern California Logistics Airport Specific Plan. February.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model. Version 1.1.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe, National Transportation Systems Center. September. Accessed September 2022 . https://www.transit.dot.gov /sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration- impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
Gordon Bricken & Associates. 2012. Acoustical Analysis for the Bundy Canyon Si te, City of Wildomar. January 17.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9-74-004. March.
USEPA. 2020. Laws and Regulations – Summary of the Noise Control Act. Page last updated July 31.
Accessed September 2022. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-noise-control-act.
Chapter 7: References
Draft PEIR 7-4 September 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 3.6: Transportation
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
Chapter 5: Alternatives
City of Victorville. 2008. Victorville General Plan 2030. October 21.
PLAN21-00034 Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)
PEIR Appendix A, B, C, D, & E, and
the Notice of Availably are located at the following location:
https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city-
departments/development/planning/environmental-review-notices
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT C
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding
Considerations &
PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations
City of Victorville General Plan Update
SCH No. 2021100136
November 2022
Prepared for:
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California, 92392
Contact: Scott Webb
Prepared by:
600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-1778
Contact: Kristin Blackson, PMP
This page intentionally left blank.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR i November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 3
1.3 Project Components ........................................................................................ 4
1.3.1 Land Use Element Update ................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Proposed Land Use Designations ....................................................... 4
1.3.3 Safety Element Update ...................................................................... 11
1.3.4 Environmental Justice Element ......................................................... 11 Section 2 Environmental Procedures .................................................................................. 13
2.1 Lead Agency .................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Environmental Impact Report ........................................................................ 13
2.3 Public Participation ........................................................................................ 13
2.4 Record of Proceedings .................................................................................. 13 Section 3 Findings Under CEQA .......................................................................................... 15
3.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Terminology ................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Legal Effect .................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................... 17
3.5 Certification of the Final PEIR ....................................................................... 17 Section 4 Findings Regarding Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Significant or Potentially Significant Effects ............................................................................. 19
4.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Threshold 2: Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutant ...................... 19
4.1.2 Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors ...................................................... 20
4.1.3 Threshold 4: Odors ............................................................................ 21
4.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Threshold 1: Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species .......... 22
4.2.2 Threshold 3: Wetlands ....................................................................... 22
4.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................... 23
4.3.1 Threshold 1: Historical Resources ..................................................... 23
4.3.2 Threshold 2: Archaeological Resources ............................................ 24
4.3.3 Threshold 3: Human Remains ........................................................... 26
4.3.4 Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................. 26
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 27
4.4.1 Threshold 2: Conflict with Applicable Plan ......................................... 27 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR ii November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
4.5 Noise ............................................................................................................. 29
4.5.1 Threshold 1: Excessive Noise Levels ................................................ 29
4.5.2 Threshold 2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise .................. 30
4.5.3 Cumulative Considerable Excessive Noise Levels ............................ 32 Section 5 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives ........................................................... 33 Section 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations ........................................................... 43 Tables
Table 1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations ............................... 5 Table 2. Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distribution ................................................... 9 Table 3. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity .............................. 10 Table 4. Comparison of Existing 2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update ........ 11 Table 5. Comparison of Development Capacity of 2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 6. Comparison of Development Capacity of the Reduced Density Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update ...................................................................................... 37 Table 7. Comparison of Development Capacity of the Increased Conservation Alternative and Proposed General Plan Update ...................................................................................... 39 Attachments
Attachment 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 1 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Introduction
The City of Victorville (Victorville or City) hereby makes the following Findings concerning the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) (SCH No. 2021100136) for the proposed City of Victorville General Plan Update (project), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code , Section 21000 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations, the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15000 et seq.).
The Final PEIR prepared for the project consists of an Errata summarizing corrections and revisions made to the Draft PEIR, comments received on the Draft PEIR and the City’s responses to those comments, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 2 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
This page intentionally left blank.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 3 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 1 Project Description
1.1 Project Location
The City is in the southwestern portion of the County of San Bernardino in the geographic sub-region of the southwestern Mojave Desert (known as Victor Valley or the High Desert), within the Inland Empire area, as shown on Figure 2 -1, Regional Location, in the Draft PEIR. The City is considered the largest metropolitan area in the Mojave Dese rt. Victorville is approximately 90 miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles, 35 miles northeast of the City of San Bernardino, and north of the San Bernardino Mountains at the edge of the Mojave Desert. The Mojave River runs through the City toward the Mojave Desert. Areas surrounding the City’s Planning Area are largely undeveloped and contained within the unincorporated County of San Bernardino boundaries.
The City is within Victor Valley, often referred to as the “High Desert” due to its approx imate elevation of 2,900 feet above mean sea level. The Victor Valley is separated from other urbanized areas in Southern California by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. The City and its sphere of influence (SOI) are accessible via Interstate 15, U.S. Route 395, State Route 18, and historic U.S. Route 66 (Figure 2-2, Project Location, in the Draft PEIR).
1.2 Project Objectives
The City’s project objectives for the project are as follows:
1. Guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community’s vision, enhances our community’s quality of life, and provides a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality.
2. Create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville ’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs.
3. Create an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville.
4. Meet new statutory requirements identified in the Housing Element Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels.
5. Create strategies to separate sources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality.
6. Promote access to public facilities and services by developing com plete streets concepts throughout Victorville.
7. Protect Victorville against natural and human -made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 4 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
1.3 Project Components
The project prop oses updates to the Land Use and Safety Elements and the creation of a new Environmental Justice Element as a stand-alone chapter in the Victorville General Plan 2030. Each project component is described below.
1.3.1 Land Use Element Update
The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides long -term goals and policies that guide the City’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs. The update would promote land use and development pract ices that are consistent with Smart Growth principles to conserve natural resources and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The update would encourage economic development strategies by providing an appropriate mix of land uses to allow growth and employment to support the City as a major regional center for business and commerce in the Victor Valley. It would encourage development within proximity to the City center and commercial corridors and near underutilized commercial centers and aim to minimize the expansion of infrastructure. The updated Land Use Element would include a significant increase in open space with the addition of the Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC). The proposed update would provide a clear guide for future growth identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021), which the City prepared in a separate, independent process from this General Plan Update. The Land Use Element Update would ensure equitable policies and opportunities for a vari ety of housing types and affordability levels in the City. It would expand the types of housing in Victorville to accommodate people of all ages, socioeconomic statuses, family sizes, and abilities.
1.3.2 Proposed Land Use Designations
As shown in Table 1 , Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations , the proposed Land Use Element Update would include changes to the existing land use designations, which establish the general pattern of land uses in the Planning Area and would identify maximum permitted land use densities and intensities. The Land Use Element Update would establish 16 land use designations (14 primary land use designations and two overlay designations) that govern land uses in the Planning Area as shown in Table 1. These designations apply density and intensity requirements, use characteristics, and land use policies to individual parcels.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 5 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Residential
Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) Generally characterized by single- family detached homes on lots with a
minimum area of one-half acre, which
allows for a maximum of two dwelling
units per acre.
Density: 0–2 du/ac
Low Density Residential (LDR) Generally characterized by single- family detached residential
development.
Density: 0–5 du/ac
Low-Medium Density Residential
(LMDR)
Generally typified by single-family
detached units; duplex, triplex, and
fourplex structures; patio homes,
cottage/bungalow court housing, and
attached townhomes.
Density: 5.1–12 du/ac
Medium Density Residential (MDR)2 Generally characterized by cottage/bungalow court housing,
attached townhomes, and garden
apartments.
Density: 12.1–20 du/ac
High Density Residential (HDR) Generally typified by garden apartments and low- to mid-rise multi-
family buildings.
Density: 20.1–30 du/ac
Mixed Density Residential (MXDR) Intended to facilitate single-family infill development in the event that
extraordinary developmental
constraints, such as a lack of required
sewer infrastructure, make the
continued development of the permitted
high-density uses impractical or
infeasible. Residential development in
the Mixed Density Residential land use
category ranges from single-family
detached units to multi-family attached
units, such as apartments. The MXDR
zone district corresponds to this
General Plan land use designation.
Density: 1–15 du/ac for infill
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)2 Provides for a mix of neighborhood- and community-serving commercial,
service, and other complementary and
supportive uses with a variety of lower
to medium density housing to
encourage infill development and/or
revitalization of existing areas. “Big box”
retailers prohibited. Mix of uses can be
vertical or horizontal. MU-1 allows
mixed-use, stand-alone commercial,
and stand-alone residential.
Density: 0–15 du/ac
Non-Residential FAR: 0.5
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 6 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)2 Provides for a mix of neighborhood- and community-serving commercial,
service, and other complementary and
supportive uses with a variety of
medium- to high-density housing to
encourage infill development and/or
revitalization of existing areas. Provides
flexibility to support changing land use
trends. “Big box” retailers prohibited.
Accommodates lower-income Regional
Housing Needs Allocation default
density. Mix of uses can be vertical or
horizontal. MU-2 allows mixed-use,
stand-alone commercial, and stand-
alone residential.
Density: 15.1–30 du/ac
Non-Residential FAR: 1.0
Commercial
General Commercial (GC) Provides for a wide range of retail commercial, service commercial, and
office commercial activities, as well as
large-scale planned shopping districts
serving the local and regional area and
population, “big box” retailers,
motels/hotels, and public assembly
uses.
FAR: 2.0 (Note: Certain uses, such as
hotels and convention centers, may be
increased on a case-by-case basis.)
Industrial
Light Industrial (LI) This category of land use is
characterized by industrial development
either in industrial and/or business
parks or in mixed industrial/business
park use areas. The main feature of
industrial activities in this category is
that they do not require any significant
site or structure requirements that are
so specialized that would limit future
use of the structures and/or site by
another industrial activity.
FAR: 1.0
Heavy Industrial (HI) The Heavy Industrial land use category refers to industrial and manufacturing
uses that are more specialized in nature
and require special consideration in terms
of use of the property as well as impacts
on adjacent properties.
FAR: 1.0
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional (P-I) Refers to those land uses and activities that are predominately used for public
purposes or owned or operated by a
public entity. Activities within this category
include city and county buildings, public
and private schools, colleges, and public
utilities and city yards.
FAR: Development intensity determined
on a case-by-case basis
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 7 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Open Space (OS) Refers to land that is to remain
undeveloped due to severe
development constraints, lake or river
bodies and floodplains, and reserved
public open space in parks, golf
courses, or other lands with an open
space character that protect public
safety and/or conserve public
resources. The purpose of this district is
to provide for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general
welfare in those areas of the City that,
under present conditions, are subject to
periodic flooding and accompanying
hazards and to conserve natural
resources of benefit to the general
public interest.
FAR: NA
Minimum Density: 1 du/5 ac on property
outside the floodplain
Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC)2 Areas outside the floodplain are permitted one single-family dwelling on
a 5-acre minimum lot and agricultural
uses.
FAR: NA
Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay
(LDRIO)2
Applies to VLDR and LDR properties in
the area included within the overlay.
Allows increase in density in core area
of the City to:
• Encourage infill and promote
efficient use of existing infrastructure
• Provide additional housing
opportunities
0–9 du/ac3
Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO)2
Promotes health and wellness for all
segments of the community, (local and
regional-serving), including those who
are ill, those who are aging, and health-
conscious individuals of all ages.
Applies to existing and proposed
hospitals/medical facilities.
Allows public and private hospitals,
medical centers and supportive offices,
emerging medical facilities, healthcare
clinics, community centers, extended
care and nursing facilities, pharmacies,
24/7 centers (e.g., imaging, dialysis,
etc.), senior housing, daycare (adult,
child, specialized), Alzheimer’s care
and living, restaurants and juice bars,
grocery stores, other support retail,
gyms and fitness studios, and
recreation/trails.
Density: 20–30 du/ac
FAR: 2.0
(Note: Density and FAR may be
modified based on approval of an
implementing planned unit
development.)
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 8 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 1. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Definition Density/Intensity Standards1 Allows a range of housing integrated
into the development.
Functions as a sustainability hub,
promoting active transportation, green
infrastructure, open space, electric
vehicle charging stations, edible
landscaping, and composting.
Requires an integrated development via
a planned unit development to use
overlay.
Specific Plan
Specific Plan The Land Use Element provides for a
number of Specific Plans within the
City. The Specific Plans identify the
location, extent, and density of new
development and also indicate specific
development standards that are
applicable.
All land uses, densities, other
regulations, and development
standards shall be those as set forth in
the adopted Specific Plan.
Notes: du = dwelling unit; FAR = floor area ratio
1 Denotes new land use designation.
2 Density, expressed as dwelling units per acre (du/ac), refers to the allowable residential density range for a stand-alone residential or the residential portion of a mixed -use project, not including any density bonus as allowed per California Government Code , Sections 65915–65918, and the Victorville Zoning Code. Intensity, expressed as FAR, refers to the maximum non-residential square footage allowed on a site including Mixed Use designations, unless otherwise approved by the applicable City reviewing author ity. 3 Maximum allowable density may be reduced to 7 du/ac unless certain design/amenity benchmarks are met, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
A new High Density Residential land use designation was added to accommodate default density for affordable housing to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Land Use Element removes the existing Mixed Use-High Density land use designation and added two new Mixed Use designations. The added designations would provide housing in proximity to resident-serving uses and close to transit, provide greater flexibility in types of uses to be responsive to market change, encourage revitalization in underutilized areas of Victorville , and coordinate with the Housing Element to provide designations to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. In addition, the Land Use Element removes the Office Professional designation and redesignates those properties to other designations. The Land Use Element also adds new land use categories such as the Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC) and Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO). The new Greenway/Utility Corridor (GUC) is along the City’s key public utility corridors to promote the creation of continuous trails and multiple public access points. The new Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO) is intended to promote health and wellness for all segments of the community. The Health and Wellness Overlay (HWO) applies to existing and proposed hospitals/medical facilities ; allows a full range of medical uses and specialized care facilities ; allows complementary uses such as restaurants, grocery stores, support retail, gyms/fitness studios, and recreation/trails; allows a range of housing integrated into the development ; and functions as CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 9 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
a sustainability hub, promoting active transportation, green infrastructure, open space, and electric vehicle charging stations.
As shown in Table 2, Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distribution, the largest land use in the Planning Area would be residential, and the next largest would be commercial.
Table 2. Victorville General Plan Update Land Use Distribution Land Use Designations City of Victorville (acres) Sphere of Influence (acres) Residential
Very Low Density Residential 3,096.40 4,604.43
Low Density Residential 13,976.14 2,518.49
Low-Medium Density Residential 487.28 0
Medium Density Residential 1,902.74 12.49
Mixed Density Residential 106.07 0
High Density Residential 59.49 0
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 1 372.37 401.77
Mixed Use 2 1,063.43 160.04
Commercial
General Commercial 4,116.31 428.12
Industrial
Light Industrial 2,694.16 78.70
Heavy Industrial 1,144.56 0
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional 810.70 773.68
Open Space 2,789.13 10,076.16
Greenway/Utility Corridor 1,075.07 0
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 13,181.14 630.43
Total Acreage 46,874.92 19,684.31
Overlays
Low Density Residential Infill Overlay 15,439.85 0
Health and Wellness Overlay 289.20 0
Buildout of land in the City and SOI would result in approximately 73,808 dwelling units to house approximately 339,613 residents and would support 42,393,038 non-residential square feet. These parameters can be used to identify the anti cipated levels of development allotted by the project throughout the Planning Area. Table 3, Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity, details the proposed densities of residential and intensity of non-residential development that would occur with implementation of the land use policies in the General Plan Update.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 10 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 3. Proposed Victorville General Plan Update Development Capacity Land Use
Designations
City of Victorville
(du)
Sphere of Influence
(du)
City of Victorville
(square feet)
Sphere of Influence
(square feet)
Residential1
Very Low Density
Residential
3,715 4,420 NA NA
Low Density
Residential2
8,387 4,534 NA NA
Low Density
Residential in Low
Density Residential
Infill Overlay
22,356 NA NA NA
Low-Medium Density
Residential
2,338 NA NA NA
Medium Density
Residential
10,657 52 NA NA
Mixed Density
Residential
700 NA NA NA
High Density
Residential
1,274 NA NA NA
Mixed Use3
Mixed Use 1 744 402 1,701,454 3,677,355
Mixed Use 2 5,315 320 4,167,385 313,632
Commercial
General Commercial NA NA 18,825,761 1,398,276
Industrial
Light Industrial NA NA 8,804,565 567,805
Heavy Industrial NA NA 6,733,287 NA
Public/Institutional/Open Space
Public/Institutional NA NA 529,907 252,866
Open Space NA 101 NA NA
Greenway/Utility
Corridor
NA NA NA NA
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 7,909 605 7,252,423 0
Total 63,395 10,434 48,014,782 6,209,934
Notes: du = dwelling unit
Buildout assumptions for 2045 are inferred from the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020). 1 Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element). 2 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density.
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 11 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 4, Comparison of Existing 2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update, compares the estimated level of residential and non -residential development and population for the City under the existing 2008 General Plan and existing 2022 baseline conditions compared to the General Plan Update.
Table 4. Comparison of Existing 2008 General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Location Number of Dwelling Units Total Population1
Non-Residential
Square Feet
Existing General Plan (2008 Buildout)
City of Victorville 84,746 266,102 17,730,215
Sphere of Influence 23,411 73,511 33,628,525
Existing Conditions (2022 Baseline)
City of Victorville 36,195 130,771 27,991,000
Sphere of Influence 5,137 6,922 596,000
Proposed General Plan Update2
City of Victorville 63,395 199,060 48,014,782
Sphere of Influence 10,434 32,801 6,209,934
Net Change (2022 Baseline – Proposed General Plan Update) City of Victorville 27,200 68,289 8,192,124
Sphere of Influence 5,276 15,879 5,613,914
Notes:
1 Population estimates are inferred from SCAG’s 2020 Final CONNECT SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast (September 3, 2020). 2 The number of dwelling units is based on average density at buildout, not maximum density. 3 Average density is lower than the Low Density Residential Infill Overlay density range to account for existing low density residential that was developed at the lower density; Residential Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 80 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element); Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).
1.3.3 Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update wou ld identify and, when possible, reduce the impact of natural and human-made hazards that may threaten the health, safety, and property of the residents living and working in the Planning Area. The Safety Element Update would emphasize hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions in susceptible areas and promote accident prevention. The Safety Element Update would integrate public health and safety into development and planning policies to emphasize responses and to maintain optimal emergency preparedness in accordance with recently adopted state laws.
1.3.4 Environmental Justice Element
The Environmental Justice Element would be prepared as a new chapter in the Victorville General Plan. Preparation of an Environmental Justice Element is required under Senate Bill 1000 for jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities. It will reflect the City ’s commitment to reducing environmental burdens and ensuring all residents have the opportunity to access public goods and services that improve their quality of life. The Environmental Justice Element would focus on CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 12 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
objectives and policies that aim to reduce pollution exposure; improve access to public facilities and services; improve access to healthy foods; promote access to physical activity and recreation; improve access to safe, sanitary, and affordable housing; reduce exposure to climate hazards; and improve civic engagement in the public decision-making process.
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 13 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 2 Environmental Procedures
2.1 Lead Agency
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15367, the City is the lead agency for preparing the environmental review required by CEQA. The environmental review prepared by the City will be used by the City Council regarding its decisions to certify the PEIR and approve the project.
2.2 Environmental Impact Report
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15080 et seq., the City prepared a PEIR to analyze the potential impacts of the project on the environment. The Final PEIR contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, including the Draft PEIR and the appendices to the Draft PEIR.
2.3 Public Participation
Environmental review of the project began on October 6, 2021, with the publication of the Notice of Preparation of the PEIR and a minimum 30 -day public review period. The City held a public scoping meeting on October 20, 2021. The Notice of Preparation public comment period ended on November 8, 2021 . The Draft PEIR was completed , and the Notice of Availability f or public review was posted on September 2, 2022. A 45-day public review period for the Draft PEIR began on September 2, 2022, and ended on October 17, 2022. Two comment letters were received.
These comments and the City’s responses to them are included in the Final PEIR as required by CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15088 and 15132. The Final PEIR, including an Errata and the City’s responses to comments, was completed. A public hearing concerning the certification of the Final PEIR will be held by City Council on December 6, 2022, at which time interested agencies, organizations, and individuals will be given an opportunity to comment on the Final PEIR and the project.
2.4 Record of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA and the Findings as follows, the administrative record of the City’s decision concerning certification of the Final PEIR for the project includes the following:
• Draft PEIR (September 2022)
• Final PEIR, including the Errata (November 2022)
• Appendices to the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR
• All documents and other materials listed as references or incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR, including but not limited to the materials identified in the Chapter 7, References, of the Draft PEIR
• All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters, and other documents prepared by the City’s staff and consultants for the project, which are before the City Council as determined by the County Clerk
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 14 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
• All notices issued by the City to comply with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or any other law governing the processing and approval of the project • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project • All documents or other materials submitted by interested people and public agencies in connection with the Draft PEIR and the Final PEIR
• Minutes, recordings, and verbatim transcripts, if any, of the public hearing to be held on December 6, 2022, concerning the Final PEIR and the project • All Findings and resolutions adopted by City Council in connection with the project (including these Findings) and all documents cited or referred to therein • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings concerning the Final PEIR and the project • Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by California Public Resources Code, Section 21167.6(e)
• Any other written materials relevant to the City ’s compliance with CEQA and its decision on the merits of the project, including documents that have been released for public review and copies of reports, studies , or other documents relied on in any environmental documentation for the project and either made available to the public during the public comment period or included in the City’s files The custodian of the documents and other materials composing the administrative record o f the City’s decision concerning certification of the Final PEIR is the City Clerk. The location of the administrative record is Victorville City Hall , 14343 Civic Drive , Victorville, California 92392 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6[a][2]).