Agenda packet — Victorville City Council, December 20, 2022 (part 5 of 8)

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 15 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 3 Findings Under CEQA

3.1 Purpose
California Public Resources Code, Section 21002, states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” The same section states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 also states that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” California Public Resources Code, Section 21002, is implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt written Findings before approving projects (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091). Specifically, CEQA requires the City to make written Findings of Fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the Final PEIR (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091, 21081).

In accordance with CEQA, the purpose of the Findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the project on the environment and to determine the feasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives identified in the Final PEIR that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects. These Findings set forth the reasons and evidence in support of the City’s determinations.

3.2 Terminology
A “Finding” is a written statement made by the City that explains how the City dealt with each significant impact and alternative identified in the Final PEIR. Each Finding contains a conclusion regarding each significant impact, substantial evidence supporting the conclusion, and an explanation of how the substantial evidence supports the conclusion.

For each significant effect identified in the Final PEIR, the City is required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a), to make a written Finding reaching one or more of the following conclusions:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 16 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
A mitigation measure or an alternative is considered “feasible” if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reas onable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors ( California Public Resource s Code, Section 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565) . The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1 982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417) . “Feasibility under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland [1993] 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715).

CEQA also requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between “avoiding” a significant environmental effect and “substantially lessening” such an effect. Therefore, the City must glean the meaning of these terms from other contexts in which the terms are used. California Public Resources Code, Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines , Section 15091, is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than “substantially lessen. ” Therefore, t he CEQA Guidelines equate “mitigating” with “substantially lessening. ” Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects ” (California Public Resources Code, Section 21002). For the purposes of these Findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts a re not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper Findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s benefits rendered acceptable its unavoidable adverse environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093 and 15043[b]; California Public Resources Code, Section 21081[b]).

The California Supreme Court has stated that “the wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local offi cials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. Th e law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and th erefore balanced” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 576).

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 17 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the approved project because, despite implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project as approved would have significant impacts on air quality, cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), GHG emissions, and noise that could not be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.

3.3 Legal Effect
To the extent that these Findings conclude that mitigation measures identified in the Final PEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties to implement these mitigation measures. These Findings are not merely informational but constitute a binding set of obligations for the City and responsible parties, which will take effect if and when the City adopts a resolution certifying the Final PEIR and resolutions approving the project.

3.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In adopting these Findings, the City also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to California Public Resources Code , Section 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines , Section 15097. This program is designed to ensure that the project complies with the feasible mitig ation measures identified below during implementation of the project. The program is set forth in the City of Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is adopted by the City concurrently with these Findings, is incorporated herein by reference , and is included as Attachment 1 to these Findings.

3.5 Certification of the Final PEIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090, the City further finds and certifies that:
• The Final PEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. • The Final PEIR has been presented to the City Council, which constitutes the decision- making body of the lead agency, and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final PEIR before approving the project. • The Final PEIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 18 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update

This page intentionally left blank.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 19 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 4 Findings Regarding Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Significant or Potentially Significant Effects
The project would result in direct and indirect significant and potentially significant environmental effects regarding air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, and noise. These significant environmental effects and the mitigation measures identified to avoid or substantially lessen them are discussed in detail in Draft PEIR Section 3.1, Air Quality; Section

3.2, Biological Resources; Section 3.3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources; Section

3.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ; and Section 3.5, Noise. A summary of significant impacts and mitigation measures for the project is included in the Executive Summary of the Draft PEIR.

Below are the Findings regarding the potential direct , indirect, or cumulative significant environmental effects of the project. The Findings incorporate by reference the discussion of potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures in the Final PEIR. The Final PEIR, which includes the Draft PEIR and appendices, is referred to below as the “PEIR.”

4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Threshold 2: Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutant Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact and a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact on Air Quality Threshold 2 associated with emissions from construction activities and project operation that would potentially exceed the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) thresholds. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.1.5.2.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on air quality identified as an impact on Air Quality Threshold 2 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Fact in S upport of Finding: The potentially significant impacts of the project on Air Quality Threshold 2 are analyzed in PEIR Section 3.1.5.2. Impacts would result in significant increases in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation.

The potentially significant impacts on Air Quality Threshold 2 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Mitigation Measure AIR -1 is set forth in full in Table ES-3, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 requires future development projects pursuant to the General CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 20 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Plan Update to demonstrate compliance with the MDAQMD thresholds and to implement emissions reduction measures to the extent necessary to reduce emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -1 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions related to construction activities and operation.

In addition, Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG-2 would reduce criteria pollut ant emissions during construction and operation by requiring the implementation of a qualified CAP Climate Action Plan (CAP) to identify GHG emissions reduction strategies that would achieve the City’s fair-share contribution to achieving statewide emissions reduction goals and for future projects to implement the California Air Resources Board ’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan GHG emissions reduction strategies. However, because site-specific emissions have not been quantified, it cannot be guaranteed that compliance with the reduction measures would fully reduce impacts.

Therefore, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AIR -1, GHG-1, and GHG -2, the impact on Air Quality Threshold 2 is considered significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, is required.

4.1.2 Threshold 3: Sensitive Receptors
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Air Quality Threshold 3 related to the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of exposure to a carbon dioxide (CO2) hotspot and toxic air contaminants (TACs) during project operation. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.1.5.3.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on air quality resources identified as an impact on Air Quality Threshold 3 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Fact in Support of Finding : The potentially significant impacts of the project on Air Quality Threshold 3 are analyzed in PEIR Section 3.1.5.3. Impacts would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.

The potentially significant impacts on Air Quality Threshold 3 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 is set forth in full in Table ES-3 of the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would require the preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for future projects that would generate TACs (such as diesel particulate matter) in the General Plan Update Planning Area or that would locate a new sensitive receptor within the applicable screening level distance identified in the MDAQMD CEQA and Federal CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 21 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Conformity Guidelines. The Health Risk Assessment would demonstrate that the project would not pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. 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. 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. Therefore, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2, the impact on Air Quality Threshold 3, exposure to TAC emissions, is considered significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, is required.

4.1.3 Threshold 4: Odors
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Air Quality Threshold 4 associated with new industrial la nd uses that would have the potential to produce objectionable odors during industrial processes and manufacturing or places sensitive -receptor development near an existing odor source. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.1.5.4.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impacts of the project on Air Quality Threshold 4 are analyzed in PEIR Section 3.1.5.4. Impacts would have the potential to result in odor emissions during operation of future projects or place sensitive -receptor development near an existing source.

The potentially significant impacts on Air Quality Threshold 4 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3. Mitigation Measure AIR -3 is set forth in full in Table ES -3 of the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure AIR-3 requires that if a discretionary project has the poten tial 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 MDAQMD Rule 402 for projects in the Planning Area . 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. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3, the impact related to objectionable odors would be reduced to a less than significant level.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 22 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update

4.2 Biological Resources

4.2.1 Threshold 1: Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Biological Resources Threshold 1 associated with the construction of future development that could result in the loss or destruction of plant and wildlife species and nesting birds identified as candidate, sensitive, or special -status spe cies. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.2.4.1.

Fact in Support of Findi ng: The potentially significant impacts of the project on Biological Resources Threshold 1 are analyzed in PEIR Section 3.2.4.1. Impacts would result in the direct and indirect physical impacts on nesting birds and raptors.

The potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources Threshold 1 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. This mitigation measure is set forth in full in Table ES- 3 of the Executive Summary in the PEIR. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require pre-construction nesting bird and raptor surveys for projects in the Planning Area with vegetation supporting nesting birds and raptors for construction activities during the general bird and raptor nesting season (January 15 through September 15). If active nests of bird species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are detected, construction activities shall stay outside a 300-foot buffer around the active nest and shall expand to 500 feet for raptors. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant.

4.2.2 Threshold 3: Wetlands
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Biological Resources Threshold 3 associated with the construction of future development projects. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section

3.2.4.3. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on Biological Resources Threshold 3 as identified in the PEIR.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Biological Resources Threshold 3 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.2.4.3. Implementation of the project could have potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 23 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources Threshold 3 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires future projects within or adjacent to the Mojave River or other aquatic resources that have the potential to impact sensitive aquatic resources to conduct an aquat ic 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 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region to map the extent of we tlands and non -wetland waters, determine jurisdiction, and assess potential impacts. The aquatic resources shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The results shall be incorporated into the C EQA documents required for approval and permitting of the project. If impacts were to occur, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires that permits and authorizations be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board before the start of construction. The regulatory agencies ’ authorizations would include specific avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures for impacts on jurisdictional resources and may include monetary contributions to a mitigation bank or habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement. With implementati on of Mitigation Measure s BIO-2 and BIO -3, impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources would be less than significant.

4.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.3.1 Threshold 1: Historical Resources
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potential ly significant impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 associated with the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that a substantial adverse change to the historic al resource would result pursuant to C EQA Guidelines, Section 21084.

Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.3.4.1.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on cultural resources identified as an impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.3.4.1. An impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 would occur because future development or redevelopment activity that would be CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 24 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
accommodated by the General Plan Update could result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource; therefore, the impact would be potentially significant.

Potentially significant impacts on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the identification and evaluatio n of built environment resources if built environment resources that meet the age threshold for eligibility would be located on a future development site. If needed, the resource shall be evaluated in accordance with the California Office of Historic Prese rvation guidelines to identify any previously unrecorded potential historical resources. If avoidance or preservation in place of a built environment resource is not possible, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 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 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualified Standards. Before 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 the City. If a project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or Historic American Landscape Survey documentation. Documentation shall include an architectural and historical narrative, photographs, and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historical photographs.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and C UL-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with historical resources. However, if a project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would not adequately replace the demolished structures and would not reasonably mitigate the impacts of the demolition to a less than significant level because it would no longer convey its historical significance. Therefore, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 1 is considered significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, is required.

4.3.2 Threshold 2: Archaeological Resources
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially sign ificant impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2 associated with construction activities that could result in the damage or destruction of previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.3.4.2.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 25 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)( 1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2 as identified in the PEIR.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.3.4.2. An impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2 would occur because construction activities associated with future development proposed under General Plan Update could cause damage to or destruction of previously unknown subsurface archaeological resources; therefore, impacts would be significant.

Potentially significant impacts on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5. Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 are set forth in full in Table ES-3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would require a Cultural Resources Study and evaluation of resources. If resources are identified during the site-specific archaeological survey, a Phase II evaluation of the resources to the California Register of Historical Resources would be conducted to determine if the resources are significant under CEQA and would be adversely impacted by the project. If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified during the Phase I or Phase II assessments and impacts on these resources cannot be avoided as described in Mitigation Measure CUL-3, then appropriate site- specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken . If no significant resources are found, but if there is a potential for unknown archaeological resources or TCRs to be uncovered during specific project activities, an archaeological and Native American monitoring program is recommended. Mitigation Measure CUL -4 requires the avoidance and preservation of cultural resources. Avoidance of cultural resources and TCRs can be accomplished through a project redesign. Preservation in place can 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. Mitigation Measure CUL-5 would require the creation of an archaeological and Native American monitoring program for future development that would conduct new ground disturbance in areas identified as having a potential for unknown archaeological resources or TCRs. 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. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5, impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 26 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update

4.3.3 Threshold 3: Human Remains
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 3 associated with construction activities including excavation, which could disturb unknown human remains . Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.3.4.3.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 3 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.3.4.3. An impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 3 would occur because construction activities including excavation could result in the disturbance of unknown human remains, and therefore, impacts would be significant.

Potentially significant impacts on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 3 would be mitigated by implementation o f Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL -4, CUL -5, and CUL -6. Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL -4, CUL-5, and CUL -6 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. To reduce potential impacts on human remains from the construction activities, Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would be required, as detailed under Threshold 2. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-6 would require that construction activities be immediately halted in the event that human remains, possible human remains, and/or grave goods are encountered within 100 feet of the remains. The project proponent shall then inform the County Coroner and the City. 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 (Californi a Public Resources Code, Section 5097). The County 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 associated grave artifacts. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. With implementation o f Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, and CUL-6, impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

4.3.4 Threshold 4: Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 4 associated with grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 27 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
could potentially cause disturbance to TCR s. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.3.4.4.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 4 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.3.4.4. Impacts on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 4 would result because of the potential disturbance to TCRs.

Potentially significant impacts on Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 4 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure s CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, CUL-6, and CUL-7. These mitigation measures are set forth in full in Table ES-3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would be required as detailed under Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 2. Mitigation Measure CUL -6 would be required as detailed under Cultural Resources and TCRs Threshold 3. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 would require that the Yuhaaviatam be contacted in regards to any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should th e find be deemed significant, a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with Yuhaaviatam, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, CUL-6, and CUL-7, impacts associated with TCRs would be less than significant.

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.4.1 Threshold 2: Conflict with Applicable Plan
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on GHG Emissions Threshold 2 associated with the exceedance of the 20 22 Scoping Plan per -capita emissions targets and inconsistencies with applicable reduction measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

In addition, GHG emissions are cumulative by nature because emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. The General Plan Update would also have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG impact. Detailed information and analysis regarding the potentially significant impact are provided in PEIR Section 3.4.4.1.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on GHG emissions identified as an impact on GHG Emissions Threshold 2 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 28 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on GHG Emissions Threshold 2 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.4.4.1. Impacts on GHG Emissions Threshold 2 would result in exceedance of the 20 22 Scoping Plan per -capita emissions targets and inconsistencies with applicable reduction measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Potentially significant impacts on GHG Emissions Threshold 2 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require implementation of a qualified Climate Action Plan to identify GHG emissions reduction strategies that would achieve the City ’s fair-share contribution to achieving statewide emissions reduction goals. The program shall include an inventory of existing community GHG emissions; establish GHG emissions reduction targets consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and Executive Order B-55-18; identify GHG 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 GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require that until a local qualified Climate Action Plan is in place, and before the issuance of a building permit, a new project shall submit to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments documentation showing that the 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 , or implement project-specific GHG mitigation measures as outlined in any required CEQA document (e.g., Mitigated Negative Declaration, EIR ). Additionally, residential development shall be required to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan recommended attributes as feasible unless otherwise addressed via project-specific GHG mitigation measures as outlined in any required CEQA document.

Implementation of Mi tigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions compared to business-as-usual conditions; however, emissions reductions cannot be quantified at this time due to the uncertainty of future projects under the General Plan Update. The level of effectiveness of measures would vary from project to project and depend on the individual project site, including location, size of development, access to transit, type of development, and existing site characteristics. Additionally, it is currently unknown what proportion of existing development would be replaced with new development that would implement reduction features. Therefore, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG-2, the impact on GHG CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 29 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Emissions Threshold 2 is considered significant and unavoidable, and a Sta tement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, is required.

4.5 Noise

4.5.1 Threshold 1: Excessive Noise Levels
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Noise Threshold 1 associated with the permanent increase in vehicle noise and the exposure of new sensitive receptors to excessive vehicle nois e. Detailed information and ana lysis are provided in PEIR Section 3.5.5.1.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on noise identified as an impact on Noise Threshol d 1 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Noise Threshold 1 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.5.5.1. Impacts on Noise Threshold 1 would result from perman ent increases in vehicle noise and the exposure of new sensitive receptors to excessive vehicle noise.

Temporary impacts due to construction activities would also be a potential source of substantial noise.

Potentially significant impacts on Noise Threshold 1 would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3. Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-3 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure NOI -1 would require future development or redevelopment to implement noise reduction measures where feasible. Reduction measures would include but are not limited to alternative road design, reduced speeds, alternative paving, building retrofits to provide additional noise at tenuation, and setbacks or buffers before berms and walls. 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. Mitigation Measure NOI -2 would re quire that new development demonstrate consistency with the General Plan Noise Element Table N-3, Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards, through the preparation of a site-specific acoustical analys is. If a potentially incompatible exterior noise lev el is identified, the project shall incorporate noise attenuation features, such as enhanced windows or insulation, to provide interior noise levels of 45 decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (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 CN EL or less. Mitigation CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 30 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Measure NOI-3 would require the construction contractor of a project to demonstrate that 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 submitted to the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments for review and approval before the start of any construction.

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 circ umstances 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 necessarily 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 constru ction activities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.

Therefore, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the impact on permanent increases in vehicle noise is considered significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, is required.

4.5.2 Threshold 2: Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant impact on Noise Threshold 2 associated with the generation of excessive groundborne vibration levels during construction activities, operation of industrial equipment, or siting of vibration-sensitive receptors near freight operations. Detailed information and analysis are provided in PEIR Section 3.5.5.2.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on GHG emissions identified as an impact on Noise Threshold 2 in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 31 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Fact in Support of Finding: The potentially significant impact of the project on Noise Threshold 2 is analyzed in PEIR Section 3.5.5.2. Impacts on Noise Threshold 2 would result from the exposure of people to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels generated during construction activities, operation of industrial equipment, or siting of vibration - sensitive receptors near freight operations.

Potentially significant impacts on Noise Threshold 2 would be mitigated by implementa tion of Mitigation Measures NOI-4, NOI-5, and NOI-6. Mitigation Measures NOI-4, NOI-5, and NOI-6 are set forth in full in Table ES -3 in the Executive Summary i n the PEIR. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would require future development projects to demonstrate that vibration would not exceed the applicable Federal Transit Administration threshold (65 vibration decibels for vibration-sensitive land uses o r 75 vibration decibels for other daytime land uses) or to identify best management practices to be implemented by the construction contractor to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable threshold. The best management practices may include but not be limited to the use of only properly maintained equipment with vibratory isolators, operation of equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and use of rubber-tired vehicles as opposed to tracked vehicl es. Mitigation Measure NOI -5 would requir e future projects to complete a site-specific analysis to determine if proposed sources of vibration would result in a significant vibration at nearby land uses prior to issuance of permit approval. If significant vibration levels are identified, 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. Mitigation Measure NOI-6 would require future project applicants developing vibration-sensitive land uses near a railroad 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 vibration are detected that exceed the applicable Federal Transit Administration 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 in associated CEQA documents as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -4, groundborne vibration impacts during construction would be reduced . However, feasible alternative construction methods may not be available to reduce vibration levels t o below the applicable threshold, particularly for vibration - sensitive equipment in buildings adjacent to construction zones . T herefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, vibration impacts would be temporary and would cease following construction. Mitigation Measure NOI -5 would reduce impacts from industrial operations to a less than significant level by establishing a performance standard for new CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 32 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
permanent vibration sources. Mitigation Measure NOI -6 would reduce impacts from freight operations to a less than significant level 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.

4.5.3 Cumulative Considerable Excessive Noise Levels
Potentially Significant Impact: The PEIR identifies a potentially significant cumulative impact on noise associated with increases in traffic that would cumulatively increase traffic noise from the buildout of the General Plan Update in combination with future regional growth. Detailed information and analysis are provided in PEIR Section 3.5.6, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation.

Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the approved project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on cumulative traffic noise in the PEIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section15091(a)(3), specific legal, economic, social, technological, or other considerations make other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the PEIR infeasible.

Facts in Support of Findings: The potentially significant cumulative impact of the project on noise is analyzed in PEIR Section 3. 5.6.1. Buildout of the General Plan Update, along with future regional growth, would result in increases in traffic that would cumulatively increase traffic noise.

The potentially significant cumulative impact associated with traffic noise would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Mitigation Measure NOI -1 is set forth in Table ES-3 in the PEIR Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure NOI -1 is previously described in PEIR Section 3.5.6.1. While this mitigation measure would reduce the General Plan Update ’s incremental 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 related to traffic noise . Mitigation Measure NOI -1 would reduce impacts but not to below a cumulatively considerable level. This impact would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15093, is required.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 33 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 5 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
Because the project would cause one or more unavoidable significant environmental effects, the City must make Findings with respect to the alternatives to the project considere d in the Final PEIR, evaluating whether these alternatives could feasibly avoid or substantially lessen the project’s unavoidable significant environmental effects while achieving most of its objectives (listed in Section 4, Findings Regarding Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Significant or Potentially Significant Effects).

The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final PEIR and the Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to California Public Resource Code, Section 21 081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091(a)(3), makes the following Findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the Final PEIR.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the prov ision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final PEIR as described below. “Feasible” is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “capable of bei ng accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. ” The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15019[a][3]) also provide that “other” considerations may form the basis for a Finding of infeasibility. Case law makes clear that a mitigation measure or alternative can be deemed infeasible on the basis of its failure to meet project objectives or on related public policy grounds.

The PEIR examined a range of reasonable alternatives to determine whether they could meet the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the project’s significant impacts. These Findings also considered the feasibility of each alternative. In determining the feasibility of alternatives, the City considered whether the alternatives could be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time in light of economic, environmental, social, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126[d][5][A], 15364).

The PEIR analyzed three alternatives to the project: (1) No Project /Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, (2) Reduced Density Alternative, and (3) Increased Conservation Alternative. Detailed information and analysis concerning these alternatives are in PEIR Chapter 5, Alternatives.

This section of the Findings summarizes these alternatives and their feasibility and effectiveness in avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant impacts associated with the project.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 34 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
a. Alternative 1: No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), the discussion 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 2008 General Plan Alternative would leave the existing 2008 General Plan Land Use Element in place and assume that development would occur as designated in the 2008 General Plan land use map. Table 5, Comparison of Development Capacity of 2008 General Plan a nd 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, future development under the existing No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would result in 21,381 more dwelling units in the City and 43,361 more units in the 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 in the SOI. The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative does not include the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation or 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.

Table 5. 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
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 35 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 5. 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
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 18,825,761 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 84,748 53,872 17,730,215 45,297,378 63,395 10,434 48,014,782 6,209,934 Source: City of Victorville 2008.

Note: SOI = sphere of influence
1 Existing 2008 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).

The potential impacts of the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1, Alternative 1: No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative, in PEIR Chapter 5. Relative to the project, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan would not have any reduced impact. It would result in greater impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 36 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact and unavoidable impacts on air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and noise. In addition, the City finds this alternative infeasible because it does not address topics and issues pursuant to state requirements that have been adopted since the existing 2008 General Plan was approved in 2008. These include environmental justice and transportation issues, such as assessing vehicle miles traveled and analyzing transportation systems more holistically (e.g., complete streets ). In addition, 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 would ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels (Project Objective 4).

Furthermore, the No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would neither update the Land Use Element to guide and acco mmodate 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 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 co mmunity by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville (Project Objective 3).

Finally, t he No Project/Existing 2008 General Plan Alternative would not include an Environmental Justice Element. Without an Environmental Justice Element, the No Project/2008 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 2008 General Plan Alternative does not include an update to the Safety Element and would not be able to ensure protection of Victorville against natural and human-made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and devel opment restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).

For the potentially significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance, the City adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6 of these Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093.
b. Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would remove the proposed Low Density Residential Infill Overlay. Development in the Low Densi ty Residential Infill Overlay area 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 6, Comparison of Development Capacity of the Reduced Density CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 37 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
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 6, 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 6. 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 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
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 38 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 6. 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
Specific Plan
Specific Plan 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 7,909 605 7,252,423 0 Total 41,039 10,434 36,183,124 6,209,934 63,395 10,434 48,014,782 6,209,934 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).

The potential impacts of the Reduced Density Alternative are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.2, Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative, in PEIR Chapter 5. Relative to the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would have reduced impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation ; however, air quality, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, and noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The City finds that implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would slightly reduce the project’s significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. However, impacts on air quality, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, and noise would remain significant and unavoidable.

Further the City finds that 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 and enhances the 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 commerce, 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 would not 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 would create strategies to separate sources of pollution from CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 39 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
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 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 a nd development restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).

For the potentially significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level below significance, the City adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Se ction 6 of these Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093.
c. 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. Table 7, Comparison of Development Cap acity 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 7, 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 the new Environmental Justice Element and updated Safety Element, similar to the project.

Table 7. 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
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 40 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Table 7. 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
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 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 10,434 31,969,565 5,907,845 63,395 10,434 48,014,782 6,209,934 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 d ensity residential that was developed at the lower density.
3 Mixed Use Land Use designations—realistic capacity factor: 67 percent assumed capacity (from Housing Element).

The potential impacts of the Increased Conservation Alternative are discussed in detail in Section

5.4.3, Alternative 3: Increased Conservation Alternative, in PEIR Chapter 5. The City finds that implementation of the Increased Conservation Alternative would slightly reduce the project’s significant impacts on air qual ity, biological resources, cultural resources and TCRs, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation. However, impacts on air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and noise would remain significant and unavoidable.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 41 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
The Increased Conservation Alternative would not meet Project Objective 1 because it would not provide a mix of land uses that promote economic vitality due to the reduction in industrial development capacity to the same degree as the project . The Increased Conservation Alternative would also not meet Project Objective 2 because 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 in the Planning Area compared to the project.

The Increased Conservation Alternative would create an aesthetically pleasing community by promoting a distinctive identity for Victorville (Project Objective 3) and would meet new statutory requirements identified in the Housing E lement Update and ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels (Project Objective 4).

In addition, the Increased Conservation 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 access 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 red uction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention (Project Objective 7).

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 42 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update

This page intentionally left blank.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 43 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Section 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations
The project would have a significant, unavoidable environmenta l impact on the following area s, which is described in detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, in the PEIR:
• Air quality
• Cultural resources and TCRs
• GHG emissions
• Noise
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures regarding the significant, un avoidable environmental impacts. Although in some instances the mitigation measures may substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impact, adoption of the mitigation measures would not fully avoid the impact. In addition, the City analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project.

Based on this analysis, the City has determined that none of these alternatives meet the objectives of the project or are feasible and environmentally preferable to the project as approved.

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15043 and 15093, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project. A Statement of Overri ding Considerations allows a lead agency to determine that specific economic, social, or other expected benefits of a project outweigh its potential unavoidable, significant environmental risks. The City has weighed the benefits of the project against its potentially significant environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, the City hereby finds that the project would have the following benefits and that each of the following benefits is sufficient on its own to justify adoption of the project:
• The City ’s General Plan Update would guide and accommodate future growth in Victorville in a manner that achieves the community ’s vision, enhances the community’s quality of life, and provides a mix of land uses that promote sustainability and economic vitality.
• The City ’s General Plan Update would create a balanced land use pattern to accommodate Victorville’s future housing, commerce, industry, recreation and open space, education, employment, social, and health needs. • The City ’s General Plan Update would promote infill development to encourage efficient land development patterns to spur economic revitalization. • The City’s General Plan Update would ensure opportunities for a variety of housing types and affordability levels.

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final PEIR 44 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
• The City’s General Plan Update would promote access to public facilities and services by developing complete streets concepts throughout Victorville. • The City ’s General Plan Update would protect Victorville against natural and human-made disasters by emphasizing hazard reduction through land use and development restrictions and promoting accident prevention. • The City’s General Plan Update would create strategies to separate sources of pollution from sensitive land uses to reduce pollution exposure and improve regional air quality.

Attachment 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

This page intentionally left blank.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-1 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date Air Quality
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 Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD)
significance thresholds contained in the MDAQMD CEQA and Federal Conformity Gui delines. 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.

Development Department X City, Project Applicant,
Air Quality Professional

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 contaminants (such as diesel particulate matter) in the General Plan Update Planning Area or that would locate a new sensitive receptor within the following screening-level distances identified in the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) CEQA and Federal 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 rece ptor or proposed facility shall be sited in another location.

Development Department X City, Air Quality
Professional

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), Development Department X City, Project Applicant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-2 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date transfer 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 l ot/ 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 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.

Biological Resources
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 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 active 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.

Development Department X X City, Qualified Biologist
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 Corps 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.

Development Department X City, Qualified Biologist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-3 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date 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. Army 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 unavoida ble impacts. 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 contributions to a mitigation bank or habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement.

Development Department X City, Qualified Biologist,
Regulatory Agencies

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural 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 P rofessionally 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 hi storian 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 be 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.

Development Department X City, Qualified Architectural Historian

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 of Historic Properties shall be used to the ma ximum 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 Victorville. 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 Development Department X City, Qualified Architectural Historian

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-4 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date Historic American Buildings Survey, Historic American
Engineering Record, or Historic American Lands cape 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 institutions. The specific scope and details of documentation shall be developed at the project level.

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 City of Victorville. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central 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 Native 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 historian 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.

Development Department X City, Qualified
Archaeologist, Native
American Monitor

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-5 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date CUL-4 Avoidance and 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 constructio n 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 i mplemented by a qualified
archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format (1990) and
Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991).

Development Department X X City, Qualified
Archaeologist

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 ar eas identified as having a potential for unknown archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Resources.

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 alternative 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 American 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. In the event that cul tural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department shall be
contacted regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds Development Department X X City, Qualified
Archaeologist,
Native American Monitor

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-6 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

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 significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be
ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the Yuhaaviatam for review. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the plan accordingly.

7. Prior to the conclusion of each project, a Monitoring Report and/or Ev aluation Report, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the archaeological 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 Americ an monitor’s notes and comments, to the City of Victorville for approval.

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 Environmental 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 o f 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 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 associated grave artifacts. The specific locations of Na tive 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.

Development Department X X City, Construction
Contractor, Qualified
Archaeologist,
Native American Monitor

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-7 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date CUL-7 Contact of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department. The Yuhaaviatam shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL -5, regarding any pre - contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during project implementation and be provided information regarding the nature of the find so as to pr ovide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archa eologist, in coordination with the Yuhaaviatam, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this plan. This plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents the Yuhaaviatam for the remainder of the project, should the Yuhaaviatam elect to place a monitor on site.

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

Development Department X X City, Construction
Contractor, Qualified
Archaeologist,
Native American Monitor

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 adop ted 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 th e plan would not be cumulatively considerable.

Greenhouse 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 Califor nia Air Resources Board California’s Draft 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Development Department X City
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 consis tent with the applicable and feasible recommendations for new development in Table 1, Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Development Department X City, Project Applicant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-8 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date 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 specific 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 miti gation 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;
• 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 fos sil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking;
• Provide EV charging infrastructure at least in accordance with CALGreen Tier 2 standards; and
• Relax parking requirements by:
o Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios.
o Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per unit.
o Unbundling residential parking costs from costs to rent or lease.

Noise
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 acoustical analyst shall prepare the Noise Technical Study.

Development Department X City, Project Applicant,
Qualified Acoustical
Analyst, Qualified
Acoustical Engineer

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-9 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date 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 pri vate 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. Th e 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.

NOI-2 New Noise Sensitive Land Use. Before the approval of building permits an d 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 sit e-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.

Development Department X City, Project Applicant,
Qualified Acoustical
Analyst

NOI-3 Construction Noise Best Management Practices. Prior to approval of a grading permit for new development requiring use of heavy construction equipment, the 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 submitted 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.

Development Department X X City, Construction
Contractor

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-10 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date

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 a s 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 equ ipment 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.

7. Position (to the extent practi cal) 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.

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, the project applicant shall retain a qu alified acoustician to demonstrate that vibration would not exceed the applicable FTA threshold (65 VdB for vibration-sensitive land uses or 75 VdB for other daytime land uses), or shall identify best management practices to be implemented by the construct ion contractor to reduce vibration 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 Development Department X X City, Project Applicant,
Qualified Acoustician,
Construction Contractor

NOI-5 Vibration from Industrial Operation. Before the approval of building 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 Development Department X City, Project Applicant
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-11 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Victorville General Plan Update Mitigation Measure No. Measure Person(s) to Verify
Timing of Verification
Responsible Party
Completed
Completed Pre-Const. During Const. Post-Const. Initials Date potential sources of vibration, equipment specifications, and evaluate whether vibration would exceed the applicable FTA threshold at surrounding land uses. If significant vibr ation levels are identified, 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 Vict orville 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 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 within associated CEQA documents as applicable to the satisfaction of the City of Victorville Planning and Building Departments.

Development Department X City, Project Applicant,
Acoustical Engineer

Notes: City = City of Victorville
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final PEIR MMRP-12 November 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update

This page intentionally left blank.

CITY COUNCIL

ATTACHMENT D
Draft Land Use Element

2045 LAND USE ELEMENT
Public Review Draft
September 2, 2022
City of Victorville General Plan Update
Land Use Element

Victorville Land Use Element (Public Review Draft, September 2, 2022) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT .................................................................................................1

1.2 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................................................3

1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT .........................................................................................................................3

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS ...........................................................................4

1.5 RELATED PLANS AND PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................4

1.6 COMMUNITY OUTREACH ......................................................................................................................6

2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES ............................................................................................. 10

2.1 BALANCED GROWTH ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ................................................................................................................... 18

2.3 QUALITY OF LIFE ............................................................................................................................... 19

2.4 COMMUNITY CHARACTER .................................................................................................................. 23

3. LAND USE PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 25

3.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2 TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 25

3.3 LAND USE POLICY MAP AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM....................................................................... 27

3.4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ................................................................................................................ 32

3.5 DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AREAS .......................................................................................................... 44

3.6 RELATIONSHIP WITH ZONING ............................................................................................................ 53

3.7 ACCOMMODATING FUTURE GROWTH ................................................................................................ 55 Figures
FIGURE LUE-1: VICINITY MAP .............................................................................................................................2 FIGURE LUE-2: ILLUSTRATION OF FAR ............................................................................................................. 27 FIGURE LUE-3: LAND USE MAP ........................................................................................................................ 28 FIGURE LUE-4: DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AREA MAP ............................................................................................ 45 Tables
TABLE LUE-1: LAND USE DESIGNATION SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 29 TABLE LUE-2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS ................................ 54 TABLE LUE-3: 2045 LAND USE ELEMENT BUILD-OUT PROJECTIONS .................................................................. 55

This page intentionally left blank

City of Victorville General Plan Update
Land Use Element