City Council Chambers
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA
www.victorvilleca.gov
VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL
VICTORVILLE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY AS HOUSING ASSETS SUCCESSOR
JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
5:00 p.m. Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
The
City
Council
holds
its
business
meetings
in
public
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Ralph
M.
Brown
Act,
its
established
policies
and
procedures,
and
its
adopted
parliamentary
authority.
The
Council
strives
to
carry
out
its
meetings
in
an
atmosphere
of
professionalism
with
full
participation
by
members
of
the
body
and
the
public.
As
such,
the
Presiding
Officer
is
empowered
to
govern
City
Council
Meetings
to
foster
the
efficient
and
fair
administration
of
City
business
and
reserves
the
right
to
enforce
(or
cause
to
be
enforced)
the
Meeting
Rules
of
Conduct
and
Decorum
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
5 of
the
City
Council Policy and Procedures Manual.
The
City
Council
welcomes
and
encourages
public
participation
and
invites
the
community
to
attend
in
person.
Now
that
COVID-19
cases
in
our
area
have
reduced
to
a
point
that
social
distancing
requirements
have
been
lifted,
City
Council
Meetings
will
be
held
in-person
at
City
Hall
in
Council
Chambers.
Remote
viewing
of
our
Council
Meetings
is
available
through
YouTube,
but
public comments must be given in-person at the meeting or in advance as noted below.
Public
Comments:
Members
of
the
public
may
submit
comments
electronically
to
by
4 p.m.
the
day
of
the
meeting
to
be
distributed
to
City
Council.
Participants
are
invited
to
address
the
Council
on
agendized
and
non-agendized
topics
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
Public
comments
will
be
no
longer
than
three
(3)
minutes
per
community
member.
Should
a
speaker
conclude
their
comments
prior
to
the
expiration
of
three
(3)
minutes,
the
speaker
waives
the
right
to
speak
for
any
remaining
amount
of
time.
For
further
information
about
how
to
address
the
Council,
please refer to the City’s website at
victorvilleca.gov/government/agendas
.
In
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
if
you
need
special
assistance
to
participate
in
this
meeting,
please
contact
the
City
Clerk’s
office
at
(760)
955-5188
no
later
than
72 hours
prior
to
the
meeting.
5:00 p.m. Closed Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments for Closed Session Items
Declaration of Closed Session Item(s) by City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
A.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case
name
unspecified:
(Disclosure
would
jeopardize
existing
settlement
negotiations)
B.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case
name
unspecified:
(Disclosure
would
jeopardize
existing
settlement
negotiations)
C.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property
Location:
Assessor’s
Parcel
Numbers:
3106-261-15,
3106-261-
16, 3106-261-17 and 3106-261-18
City Negotiators: Keith C. Metzler, City Manager, or authorized designee Negotiating Parties: Brentwood Mortgage 147 LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
D.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property Location: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 3106-261-08 City Negotiators: Keith C. Metzler, City Manager, or authorized designee Negotiating Parties: LA-DF Adelanto LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
E.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property
Location:
Assessor’s
Parcel
Numbers:
0396-131-01,
0396-131-02,
0396-131-03,
0396-131-04,
0396-131-05,
0396-172-05,
0396-172-06,
0396-172-07,
0396-172-08
City Negotiators: Keith C. Metzler, City Manager, or authorized designee
Negotiating Parties: Potential Buyers and Brokers Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
Recess to Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Closed Session Announcements by the City Attorney
Invocation: Pastor Elfrem Wilson of Destiny Christian Church
Pledge of Allegiance: Police Captain John Wickum
Proclamations/Special Presentations
Recognizing
the
Recipient
of
the
Paramedic
Scholarship
Sponsored
by
the
City
of
Victorville and Victorville Fire Department
City Clerk Presents Agenda/Revisions to Agenda
Conflict of Interest Declarations
Any
items
on
this
agenda
that
might
be
a
conflict
of
interest
to
any
Council
Members/Board Members should be identified at this time.
Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Adopt
a
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
for
the
City-Wide
Environmental
Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City
Council:
(1)
Open
and
conduct
a
public
hearing
to
receive
testimony
regarding
the
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
for
the
City-Wide
Environmental
Maintenance
Permits
for
Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064
;
(2)
Close the public hearing; and
(3)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
24-008,
adopting
a
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
and
a
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
for
the
City-Wide
Environmental
Maintenance
Permits
for
Ephemeral
Washes, Project No. BM19-064, and approving the project.
2. Proposed
Ordinance
No.
2446
Revising
and
Establishing
Speed
Zones
Upon
Certain
Streets
in
the
City
by
amending
Victorville
Municipal
Code
Section
12.20.020
Recommendation:
That Honorable City Council:
(1)
Open
and
conduct
a
public
hearing
to
receive
comments
regarding
Ordinance
No. 2446 and the Municipal Code Amendment therein;
(2) Close the public hearing;
(3)
Find
the
Municipal
Code
Amendment
exempt
from
environmental
review
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
pursuant
to
Sections
15060(c)(2),
15060(c)(3), and/or 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; (4) Introduce Ordinance No. 2446 for adoption and first reading by title only; and (5) Waive further public reading in full of proposed Ordinance No. 2446.
3. Proposed
Ordinance
No.
2449,
Amending
Title
16 of
the
Victorville
Municipal
Code
with
updated
Regulations
and
Requirements
for
Sidewalk
Vendors,
Solicitors,
and
Other
Mobile
Vendors
and
Businesses;
Proposed
Resolution
No.
24-010,
Adopting
Related
New
Business
License
Fees,
and
Proposed
Resolution
No.
24-012,
Adopting a Related Business License Fee Reduction Policy
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1)
Conduct
the
Public
Hearing
and
receive
testimony
regarding
proposed
Ordinance No. 2449 and Resolution Nos. 24-010 and 24-012; (2) Close the Public Hearing;
(3)
Find
Ordinance
No.
2449
categorically
exempt
from
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(“CEQA”)
under
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15061(b)(3)
(“Common Sense” exemption);
(4) Introduce Ordinance No. 2449 for adoption and first reading by title only; (5) Waive further reading in full of proposed Ordinance No. 2449; (6)
Find
Resolution
Nos.
24-010
and
24-012
statutorily
exempt
under
CEQA
Guidelines Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges); (7)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
24-010
to
approve
a
minor
user
fee
study
and
adopt
an
amendment
to
the
City’s
Master
User
Fee
Schedule
to
establish
new
business
license
fees
applicable
to
sidewalk
vendors
and
mobile
vehicle
vendors
with
certain
other conforming changes; and
(8)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
24-012
to
establish
a
business
license
fee
reduction
policy
for first-time applicants for sidewalk vendor and mobile vehicle vendor licenses.
4. Mid-Year
Budget
Review
and
Amendment
Request
to
the
2023-2024
Revised
Fiscal Budget
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
City
Council
and
Board
of
Directors
approve
the
changes
reflected in this agenda item along with the included attachments by adopting:
(1)
Resolution
No.
24-009
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Victorville
amending
Resolution
23-036,
as
amended,
the
budget
resolution
for
the
City
of
Victorville
for
Fiscal Year 2023-2024, relating to an appropriation of funds.
(2)
Resolution
No.
VWD
24-001
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
Victorville
Water
District
amending
Resolution
VWD
23-008,
as
amended,
the
budget
resolution
for
the
Victorville
Water
District
for
the
Fiscal
Year
2023-2024,
relating
to
an
appropriation of funds.
(3)
Resolution
No.
SCLAA
24-002
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
amending
Resolution
SCLAA
23-008,
as
amended,
the
budget
resolution
for
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024, relating to an appropriation of funds. (4)
Resolution
No.
CHAS
24-002
of
the
City
Council
of
Victorville
as
the
Housing
Asset
Successor
to
the
Victorville
Redevelopment
Agency
amending
Resolution
CHAS
23-002,
as
amended,
the
budget
resolution
for
the
City
as
the
Housing
Asset
Successor for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, relating to an appropriation of funds. (5)
Resolution
No.
LBT
24-001
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
the
Library
Board
of
Trustees
amending
Resolution
No.
LBT
23-001,
as
amended,
the
budget
resolution
for the Library for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, relating to an appropriation of funds.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Public Works O&M Statistics for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2024
Recommendation:
That the Honorable Victorville City Council review and file.
6. Payroll Warrant List
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council
and
Board
of
Directors
ratify
Payroll
Demand
Schedule
No.
6A
for
Payroll
Period
November
24,
2023,
through
December
8,
2023,
in
the
amount
of
$2,189,119.30
covering
Check
Nos.
33793
through
33814,
including
Vendor
checks.
Please
note
employee
Check
Nos.
33800
and
33806
have
a
live
Check
and
an
EFT
Advice.
Also
included
are
Advice
Nos.
307766,
307769
and
307771
through
308302,
per
adopted
budget
for
Fiscal
Year
2023-2024
(period
covering July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024).
7. Code
Compliance
Department
FY23/24
Second
Quarter
Code
Compliance
and
Animal Control Division Activity Reports
Recommendation:
That the Honorable Victorville City Council review and file.
8. Community Services Quarterly Report for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2024
Recommendation:
That the Honorable Victorville City Council review and file.
9. Full Reduction of Landscaping Securities for Tract Map No. 17090
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
City
Council
approve
the
full
release
of
the
LMAD
Faithful
Performance and Labor & Materials Securities for Tract Map No. 17090.
10. Quarterly Investment Report as of December 31, 2023
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council/Board
of
Directors
receive
and
file
the
attached
Quarterly
Investment Report as of December 31, 2023.
11. Commercial Demand Schedule No. 14
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council
and
Board
of
Directors
ratify
Commercial
Demand
Schedule
No.
14 in
the
amount
of
$8,113,039.80,
covering
Electronic
Fund
Transfers
No.
337711
through
338029
and
Warrant
No.
793799
through
794101
for
01/24/2024
through
02/07/2024,
per
the
adopted
budget
for
Fiscal
Year
2023-2024
for
the
period covering July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.
12. Environmental
Programs
Quarterly
Report
for
the
Second
Quarter
of
Fiscal
Year
2024
Recommendation:
That the Honorable Victorville City Council review and file.
13. Fire Department Newsletter
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
Council
review
and
file
the
attached
Fire
Department
Newsletter.
14. Minutes
of
the
December
19,
2023,
January
16 and
February
6,
2024,
Regular
City
Council Meetings
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
City
Council
approve
the
minutes
of
the
Regular
City
Council
Meetings held on December 19, 2023, January 16 and February 6, 2024.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
15. Benefits Resolution No. 24-011 and Table of Organization
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
City
Council
adopt
Benefits
Resolution
No.
24-011,
revising
the
Table of Organization and Compensation Schedule, effective February 20, 2024.
16. First
Lease
Amendment
to
the
Standard
Lease
Agreement
for
Buildings
553
and
739
by
and
between
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
and
ComAv
Technical Services, LLC
Recommendation:
That
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
(“SCLAA”)
Board
of
Directors:
(1)
Approve
the
First
Amendment
to
the
Standard
Lease
Agreement
for
Buildings
553
and
739
(“Amendment”),
by
and
between
the
SCLAA
and
ComAv
Technical
Services, LLC, (“ComAv”); and
(2) Authorize the Airport Director to execute said Agreement.
17. Standard
Sublease
Agreement
for
Building
720,
Suite
102
by
and
between
the
Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and ComAv Technical Services, LLC
Recommendation:
That
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
(“SCLAA”)
Board
of
Directors:
(1)
Approve
entering
into
a
Standard
Sublease
Agreement
for
Building
720,
Suite
102
(“Agreement”),
by
and
between
the
SCLAA
and
ComAv
Technical
Services,
LLC,
(“ComAv”); and
(2) Authorize the Airport Director to execute said Agreement.
18. Standard
Lease
Agreement
for
Building
685C
by
and
between
the
Southern
California Logistics Airport Authority and Anduril Industries, Inc
Recommendation:
That
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
(“SCLAA”)
Board
of
Directors:
(1)
Approve
entering
into
a
Standard
Lease
Agreement
for
Building
685C
(“Agreement”),
by
and
between
the
SCLAA
and
Anduril
Industries,
Inc.,
(“Anduril”);
and
(2) Authorize the Airport Director to execute said Agreement; and (3)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
SCLAA-24-001
amending
the
2023/2024
budget
increasing revenue in account 4501119A-45200 by $59,856.
19. Initiate
the
Annexation
of
Tract
No.
18980
into
Drainage
Facilities
Assessment
District No. 1 and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 6
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1)
Approve
Resolution
No.
24-013
to
initiate
proceedings
to
annex
Tract
No.
18980
into Drainage Facilities Assessment District No. 1;
(2)
Approve
Resolution
No.
24-014
to
initiate
proceedings
to
annex
Tract
No.
18980
into Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 6;
(3)
Approve
Resolution
No.
24-015
to
preliminarily
approve
the
Drainage
Facilities
Assessment District No. 1 Engineer’s Report;
(4)
Approve
Resolution
No.
24-016
to
preliminarily
approve
the
Landscape
Maintenance Assessment District No. 6 Engineer’s Report; and (5)
Approve
Resolution
Nos.
24-017
and
24-018
setting
a
public
hearing
date
of
April 16, 2024.
20. City Manager Reports
21. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Upcoming Agenda Items
22. Reports from Council Members
Adjournment
Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing(s)
Meeting of: February 20, 2024
Submitted By:
Doug Mathews, Director of Public Works and Water
Fredy Bonilla, City Engineer
Subject:
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
1. Open and conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 24-008, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under the California Environmental Quality Act for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064, and approving the project.
Fiscal Impact:
This action will result in an expenditure of $3,000 as the Notice of Determination must be submitted to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife review. There are sufficient funds to cover this anticipated expense in Storm Drain - Contract Services (2024500-52300).
Additionally, if Council moves forward with staff’s recommendation, there will be initial application and annual permit costs through various agencies for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project (the “Project”), that will be assessed based on location(s). Additionally, the City will need to retain an on-call, licensed professional biologist for pre-construction surveys of existing vegetation, nesting birds, and other protected species before maintenance activities can commence. The services of a qualified archaeologist or certified paleontologist may be required as well.
These expenses have been anticipated and will be covered under Storm Drain – Contract 3 3
7 7
Services (2024500-52300) and will be incorporated as part of the annual budget process within the Storm Drain Fund (Fund 202) each year.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Goal E – Invest in Infrastructure: Ensuring our community’s wellbeing and sustaining a healthy and livable community by investing the time and resources necessary to maintain the City’s infrastructure. The Project will allow staff to provide routine maintenance of City- owned flood control facilities and detention basins (see map in Attachment A) which protect vital public infrastructure, including roadways, waterlines, sewer mains, high- pressure fuel transmission pipes, storm drain pipes and structures, private utilities, and public and private property; and ensure unimpeded stormwater conveyance.
Background:
The City has numerous washes, culverts, and detention basins that require frequent maintenance and inspection. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and operating the City’s flood control system in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner for protection of property and for public safety.
Routine maintenance of the City’s flood control system is required to ensure the long- term function, flow capacity, and infrastructure sustainability. Oftentimes these systems require routine maintenance following rain events to restore capacity, repair already authorized improvements, and remove undesired vegetation establishment, accumulation of debris and litter, and accumulated sediments that reduce flow capacity and increase the potential for flooding that could damage property and threaten public safety.
The environmental agencies: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), all require permits to enter any wash tributary to the Mojave River. In July 2019, the City entered into an agreement with Michael Baker International (MBI) for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits, Project No. BM19-064, which focuses on City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for annual routine maintenance from these agencies.
MBI’s responsibilities include conducting studies to understand wildlife habitats, establishing maintenance baselines, proposing solutions for clearing washes of debris and vegetation, environmental report preparation and analysis, and obtaining permits.
Additionally, the consultant will also produce a field reference manual to assist the crews with specific maintenance activities that are permitted for each location.
The primary objective of the Project is to establish a comprehensive routine maintenance program for 127 City-owned flood control facilities and detention basins managed by the City’s Public Works Department. This program will include vegetation removal, sediment and debris removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair at various City- owned properties, public right-of-way areas, and dedicated easements. The goal is to protect vital public infrastructure, including roadways, waterlines, sewer mains, high- 3 3
7 7
pressure fuel transmission pipes, storm drain pipes and structures, private utilities, and public and private property; and to ensure unimpeded stormwater conveyance.
Discussion:
The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is a crucial component required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project as the City is the designated Lead Agency performing the work. This study signifies that the City, through MBI, conducted an analysis to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify mitigation measures for any that may exist. The draft IS/MND was made available for a 30-day public review period beginning on December 12, 2023, and ending on January 10, 2024. It was posted on the City’s website and made available at the City’s Engineering counter. In addition, the IS/MND was also posted with the California State Clearinghouse and the Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI) was filed with the County of San Bernardino Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was posted on the City’s website, in the Victorville Daily Press newspaper and at City Hall, advising the date and time the public may provide comment on the proposed adoption of Resolution No. 24-008 (Attachment B) approving and adopting the Final IS/MND (Exhibit A to Attachment B).
The City received three comment letters from the following agencies in response to the draft IS/MND:
•California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region •California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region •Southern Region, Division of Safety and Dams
Although CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City has elected to prepare written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. Part II of the final IS/MND (Exhibit A to Attachment B) provides the responses to comments received from the public agencies listed above. The responses to comments from each agency were broken down into various components and were specifically addressed in a response letter, also included in Exhibit A to Attachment B, Part II. Upon review of the comments, updates to the IS/MND were performed to address the concerns received during the comment period. Part III of the IS/MND outlines the changes to the initial draft IS/MND.
Subsequently, the final IS/MND has been prepared, indicating that potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level where they are no longer considered significant. Extensive research and analysis were conducted to evaluate how the project might affect the environment, identifying various potential impacts, and how the City can safely and responsibly mitigate those impacts.
Noted areas of environmental concern include:
•Biological Resources
3 3
7 7
•Cultural Resources
•Geology and Soils
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Tribal Cultural Resources
To address these concerns, a series of mitigation measures and strategies were carefully developed and incorporated into the project plan. These measures are specifically designed to reduce or eliminate any adverse environmental effects to the greatest extent possible, ensuring the project functions in alignment with the environment and complies with the regulations set forth by the CEQA.
Below is the outline of Part IV of the IS/MND that addresses the City’s Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for this project.
•Biological Resources
oBIO-1:Conduct rare plant surveys before maintenance, documenting findings and implementing buffers if special-status plants are present. oBIO-2:Perform nesting bird surveys during avian nesting season, avoiding active nests and consulting for mitigation if necessary. oBIO-3:Conduct two pre-construction burrowing owl clearance surveys, implementing mitigation if occupied burrows are found.
oBIO-4:Seach for desert tortoise and kit fox in suitable habitat during nesting bird surveys, consulting authorities for necessary measures if species are found.
•Cultural Resources
oCUL-1: If cultural resources are discovered, during project activities, cease work within a 60-foot buffer, and hire a qualified archaeologist to assess the find. Contact potentially affected tribes for input in significance and treatment, developing a Monitoring and Treatment Plan if needed. •Geology and Solis
oGEO-1: If subsurface paleontological resources are found, cease construction, have a certified paleontologist evaluate the find, and implement a Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program if warranted. •Hazards and Hazardous Materials
oHAZ-1: If hazardous materials are discovered during construction, cease work, notify the City of Victorville, secure the area, and appoint a Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator for further action.
•Tribal Cultural Resources
oTCR-1: Notify tribes of cultural discoveries during ground-disturbing activities. Establish Treatment Plan for significant finds, involving tribal input throughout. Share project documents with the City of Victorville for distribution to tribes, maintaining ongoing consultation. 3 3
7 7
The areas forementioned above will be monitored through the City’s mitigation monitoring and reporting checklist. This checklist outlines the mitigation category, the mitigation measure to take place, monitoring and reporting process, monitoring milestones, and the party responsible for monitoring. This checklist will then have a verification of compliance; please see Part IV of the IS/MND (Exhibit A to Attachment B).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s commitment to responsible and environmentally conscious project planning. While there may be environmental considerations, the City has proactively taken steps to minimize and manage them, ultimately ensuring that the project’s impacts on the environment are considered acceptable and in accordance with applicable guidelines.
The IS/MND serves as an essential tool for involving the public and relevant authorities in the environmental review of the project. It allows the public to provide feedback and assess the steps the City is taking to reduce environmental effects, ensuring full compliance with CEQA guidelines. The publishing of the Notice of Availability/Intent to Adopt an IS/MND and holding a public hearing to hear arguments for and against the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM19-064, demonstrates the City’s commitment to transparency through an earnest effort to involve the public in the environmental review process.
After the adoption of the Mitigated Declaration, staff will move forward with applying for permits through the appropriate agency, as different areas may fall within one or more agency jurisdiction. The estimated permit process through each agency will be approximately 3-6 months, depending on the agency. Once the permits are in place, staff will begin a maintenance schedule intended to restore the City’s flood control system to its baseline design capacity as well as to maintain its future effectiveness, while also addressing blight and other unfavorable conditions within each wash location.
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 24-008, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes, Project No. BM 19-064.
Staff is available for any questions Council may have.
Attachments: A. Map
B. Resolution No. 24-008 (Including Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A thereto)
ATTACHMENT A
Map
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3A
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
15 15
POWERLINE RD
GAS LINE RD
APPLE VALLEY RD
ABBY LN
HOPLAND ST
AIR EXPRESSWAY
PHANTOM
QUARRY RD
SDMA-NW-00004
SDMA-NW-00005
SDMA-NW-00027
SDMA-NW-00006
SDMA-NW-00012
SDMA-NW-00015
SDMA-NW-00023
SDMA-NW-00022
SDMA-NW-00024
SDMA-NW-00025
SDMA-NW-00026
SDMA-NE-00018
SDMA-NE-00031
SDMA-NE-00014
SDMA-NE-00015
SDMA-NE-00013
SDMA-NE-00010
SDMA-NE-00009
SDMA-NE-00007
SDMA-NE-00008
SDMA-NE-00006
SDMA-NE-00005 SDMA-NE-00003
SDMA-NE-00004
SDMA-NE-00012
SDMA-NE-00011
SDMA-NW-00020
SDMA-NW-00023-1
SDMA-NW-00010
SDMA-NW-00011
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3B
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
CALENDULA ST
BELLFLOWER ST
PEARMAN ST
SENECA RD
ONYX RD
HOPLAND ST
395
SDMA-NW-00020
SDMA-NW-00023
SDMA-NW-00032
SDMA-NW-00044
SDMA-SW-00011
SDMA-SW-0009-9A
SDMA-SW-0009
SDMA-SW-0010
SDMA-SW-0019
SDMA-SW-0020
SDMA-SW-0021
SDMA-SW-0008
SDMA-SW-0007
SDMA-SW-0006
SDMA-SW-0023
SDMA-SW-0022
SDMA-SW-0005
SDMA-SW-0004
SDMA-SW-0003
SDMA-SW-0007-7A
SDMA-NW-00043
SDMA-NW-00031
SDMA-NW-00031-1
SDMA-NW-00041
SDMA-NW-00042
SDMA-NW-00030
SDMA-NW-00029
SDMA-NW-00030-1
SDMA-NW-00033SDMA-NW-00037 SDMA-NW-00034
SDMA-NW-00035
SDMA-NW-00035-1
SDMA-NW-00036SDMA-NW-00038
SDMA-NW-00045
SDMA-NW-00047
SDMA-NW-00040
SDMA-NW-00046
SDMA-NW-00022
SDMA-NW-00023-1
SDMA-SW-0001
SDMA-SW-0002
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3C
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
NISQUALLI RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
74TH AVE
SENECA RD
OUTER BEAR VALLEY RD
18 SDMA-NW-00043
SDMA-NW-00044
SDMA-NW-00011
SDMA-SE-00002
SDMA-SE-00004
SDMA-SE-00001
SDMA-SE-00001-1A
SDMA-SE-00030
SDMA-SE-00021
SDMA-SE-00025
SDMA-SE-00026
SDMA-SE-00021A
SDMA-SE-00031
SDMA-SW-00012
SDMA-SW-0009-9A
SDMA-SW-0009
SDMA-SW-0010SDMA-SW-0008
SDMA-SW-00013
SDMA-SW-00014
SDMA-SE-00005
SDMA-NE-00033 SDMA-NE-00028
SDMA-NE-00029
SDMA-NE-00030-30A
SDMA-NE-00030
SDMA-NE-00027
SDMA-NE-00026
SDMA-NE-00025
SDMA-SE-00008
SDMA-SE-00008-8A
SDMA-SE-00006
SDMA-5
SDMA-SE-00032
SDMA-SE-00029
SDMA-SE-00017
SDMA-SE-00014
SDMA-SE-00016SDMA-SE-00015
SDMA-SE-00015
SDMA-SE-00010
SDMA-SE-00007
SDMA-SE-00011
SDMA-NE-00024
SDMA-NE-00023
SDMA-NE-00022
SDMA-NE-00021
SDMA-SE-00019
SDMA-SE-00018-18A
SDMA-SE-
00018-18A
SDMA-SE-
00019-19A
SDMA-SE-00028
SDMA-SE-
00016-16A
SDMA-SE-
00016-16A
SDMA-NE-00020
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3D
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
EUCALYPTUS ST
MESA VIEW DR
AMARGOSA RD
BALDY MESA RD
SMOKE TREE RD
395
SDMA-SW-00018
SDMA-SW-00018
SDMA-SW-00014SDMA-SW-00017 SDMA-SW-00016-16A
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
KEY MAP
ATTACHMENT B
Resolution 24-008
RESOLUTION NO. 24-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FOR THE CITY -WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS
FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT NO. BM19 -064 AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Victorville intend s to engage in the proposed City -Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits For Ephemeral Washes Project No. BM19-064 (hereinafter the “Project”) to address routine flood control facility maintenance for 127 City- owned flood control facilities and detention basins maintained by the City of Victorville Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, following a preliminary review of the proposed P roject, the City of Victorville (“City”) determined that the approval of the Project was subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”), and as the lead agency prepared an Initial Study to analyze all potential impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts of the Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project published and posted _on December 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment for 30 days, beginning on December 12, 2023, and ending on January 10, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2024, the City of Victorville as lead agency, reviewed the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City received, considered, and prepared responses to comments received from the public and interested/responsible agencies, on the Draft Initial Study/MND; and
WHEREAS, the City held a duly noticed public hearing on February 20, 2024, to receive additional public testimony on the Initial Study/MND and the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Victorville finds that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration identified no potentially significant impacts and those impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures imposed on the P roject. No impacts would occur, or impacts would be less than significant with respect to the following issues: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Victorville has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the comments received during the public review process, prior to acting on the Project.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Victorville finds, based on the whole record before it, including the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and any comments received, that with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City of Victorville’s independent judgment and analysis. Therefore, the City of Victorville City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 4. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1), the City Council of the City of Victorville adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Part IV of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the Project on the environment and ensure compliance during project implementation and hereby approves the Project.
Section 5. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2), the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving the Project are located in the City of Victorville Engineering Department, 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA 92392. The custodian of these documents is the City Engineer.
Section 6. The City Council hereby directs City Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk County with five (5) days following Project approval.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
Exhibit A
City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits
for Ephemeral Washes Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by:
Michael Baker International, Inc.
Prepared for:
City of Victorville
FINAL | FEBRUARY 2024
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
P
ART II RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
P
ART III ERRATA
P
ART IV MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
PART I: INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fe
bruary 2024 i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Consultation ............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ....................................................................................................... 1-2 2 .0 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Background .................................................................................................................. 2-4
2.4 Project Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.5 Construction/Phasing.............................................................................................................. 2- 14
2.6 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................................ 2- 14 3 .0 Initial Study Checklist .......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................ 3-3
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 3-3 4 .0 Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4 . 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................... 4.21-1
4.22 R eferences.......................................................................................................................... 4.22-1
4.23 Report Preparation Personnel .............................................................................................. 4.23-1 5 .0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5-1 6 .0 Consultant Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 6-1
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 ii Table of Contents
7.0 Lead Agency Determination ................................................................................................................ 7-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data
Appendix B Biological Resources Reports
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 iii Table of Contents
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity .............................................................................................................................. 2-3
Exhibit 2-3A Proposed Project Site ............................................................................................................... 2-5
Exhibit 2-3B Proposed Project Site ............................................................................................................... 2-7
Exhibit 2-3C Proposed Project Site ............................................................................................................... 2-9
Exhibit 2-3D Proposed Project Site ............................................................................................................. 2-11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities ........................................................................ 2-15
Table 4.3-1 Maximum Short-Term Construction Emissions ....................................................................... 4.3-5
Table 4.4-1 Summary of State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Site ............................. 4.4-9
Table 4.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption ......................................................................................... 4.6-2
Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 4.8-6
Table 4.8-2 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Project Consistency Analysis ................................................................ 4.8-7
Table 4.8-3 2017 Scoping Plan Update Project Consistency Analysis...................................................... 4.8-10
Table 4.9-1 Facilities Within 0.25-Mile of Schools ..................................................................................... 4.9-3
Table 4.13-1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility........................................................................................ 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards ....................................................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-3 Ambient Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ............................................. 4.13-5
Table 4.13-5 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment............................................................. 4.13-6
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 iv Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 1-1 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits For Ephem eral Washes Project (herein referenced as the “project”) involves routine flood control facility maintenance for 127 City-owned flood control facilities and detention basins maintained by the City of Victorville Public Works Department; refer to Section 2.0, Project Description .
Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Victorville (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 -21177) and pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15063, the City of Victorville , acting in the capacity of Lead Agency under CEQA, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration for that project. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and/or other discretionary approvals would be required.
The environmental documentation is subject to a public review period. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City.
1.2 PURPOSE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d) identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
• A description of the project, including the location of the project; • Identification of the environmental setting;
• Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and
• The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 1-2 Introduction
Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the required contents for a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration, which include the following:
a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent; c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; and e) Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.
1.3 CONSULTATION
As soon as a Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Victorville) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these, and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Victorville Development Department, located at 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California 92392.
• City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (October 21, 2008). The Victorville City Council adopted the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (Victorville General Plan) on October 21, 2008. The Victorville General Plan provides a general, comprehensive, and long -range guide for community decision -making. The Victorville General Plan covers the seven State-mandated elements. Each element contains a brief introduction, several goals and related policies, and a description of implementation programs to accomplish said goals and related policies. Specifically, the Victorville General Plan contains the following elements:
− Land Use Element (the latest version adopted on December 20, 2022); − Circulation Element;
− Housing Element (the latest version adopted on January 18, 2022); − Noise Element;
− Safety Element (the latest version adopted on December 20, 2022); − Resource Element (incorporates Open Space and Conservation); and − Environmental Justice Element (first developed and adopted on December 20, 2022).
• Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (2008) . The Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (Victorville General Plan FPEIR) was certified by City Council in 2008. The Victorville General Plan FPEIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the Victorvil le General Plan. The General Plan FPEIR was prepared as a Program EIR, which is intended to facilitate consideration of broad policy directions, program-level alternatives, and mitigation measures consistent with the level of detail available for the plan .
The General Plan FPEIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, population and housing, noise, traffic, and growth inducement.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 1-3 Introduction
• Victorville, California Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. 2404, passed December 17 , 2019).
The Victorville, California Municipal Code (Victorville Municipal Code) consists of all the regulatory and penal ordinances and administrative ordinances of the City of Victorville. The Municipal Code is the primary method the City uses to contr ol land uses, in accordance with General Plan goals and policies. The City's Development Code, adopted as Victorville Municipal Code Title 16, is intended to implement the Victorville General Plan and regulate development in order to protect and promote t he public health, safety, prosperity and general welfare. The City's Building and Fire Regulations, adopted as Victorville Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 5, specify rules and regulations for construction, alteration, and building of structures for human occupancy.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 1-4 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-1 Project Description
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Victorville (City) is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, in the geographic sub-region known as the Victor Valley; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. The City and its sphere of influence consist of 74.16 square miles. Surrounding cities include Apple Valley to the east, Hesperia to the south, and Adelanto to the west. Interstate 15 (I-15), a major regional freeway, traverses the City in a northeast-southwest orientation, while U.S. Route 395 (US- 395) traverses the City’s western portion in a north-south orientation.
The project includes routine maintenance of a total of 127 storm water conveyance and detention facilities owned and operated by the City, which are distributed throughout City limits; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. The location within the City, specific facility identifier, anticipated maintenance activity type, frequency and duration of maintenance, as well as additional maintenance information for each facility is listed in Table 2-1, Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities. For organizational purposes, the facilities are assigned an identifier based on location within the four City quadrants (northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for managing the municipal stormwater drainage and flood control system within City-owned properties, public right-of-way (ROW), and within dedicated easements. The City identified a total of 127 facilities for inclusion within the City of Victorville Storm Drain Maintenance Program.
The City’s existing flood control system is designed to capture and transport storm flows and surface runoff through urbanized and undeveloped areas of Victorville. Within the urbanized areas of Victorville, the flood control system includes a network of constructed channels, storm drainpipes, culverts, outlet/inlet structures, detention and sedimentation basins, as well as concrete lined ditches. Surface runoff resulting from precipitation events that originates on urbanized (impervious) private property and public roadways is either captured on -site for infiltration purposes or proceeds into the City’s constructed flood control system. Surface flows that originate within vacant, undeveloped land either infiltrate into the substrate or coalesce into natural earthen channels proceeding downstream into larger ephemeral or intermittent streams.
Portions of the City consist of vacant undeveloped land. During precipitation events, surface flows that originate within vacant undeveloped land may proceed downstream within natural earthen channels and encounter develop ed areas (primarily outlying residential neighborhoods or commercial developments). The City has constructed flood control facilities including catchment structures and flood control channels to safely convey flows through or around these outlying developments. Many of these flood control channels ultimately discharge back into natural earthen channels once downstream of the development.
The City also maintains and operates a system of detention basins. These detentions basins are primarily situated near urbanized areas of the City and are designed to capture and detain storm flows to maintain downstream channel capacity. Pipe risers or spillways are used to allow storm flows to continue downstream once the basin fills to a specific water elevation or volume. Eight detention and sedimentation basins are included within this project.
2.2.1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
Based on the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (General Plan) and City of Victorville Zoning Map (Zoning Map), the project site includes multiple land use and zoning designations due to the large number of maintenance facilities proposed for the project. Land use designations and zoning on-site include, but are not limited to, Commercial (zoning:
C-1, C-2, and CM); High Density, Medium Density, Low Density, and Very Low Density Residential (zoning: R-1 through
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-1
Regional Vicinity
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
P A C I F I C O C E A N
USMC
Camp Pendleton
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
101
395
405
405
605
105
210
210
710
110
215
215
5 5
5 15
15 15
15 10
10 10
73 55
57 9191
90 60
71 83
66 91
60 38
18 18
22 1
2 14
18 18
138
138 173
74 74
1 1
133
261
241
330
241
Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
San
Bernardino
Lake
Arrowhead
Running
Springs
Riverside
Fontana
OntarioPomona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Chino
Rialto
Corona
Norco
Lake
Elsinore
Hemet
Beaumont
Redlands
Temecula
Oceanside
Murrieta
Palmdale
Lancaster
San
Fernando
Pasadena
West
Covina
Whittier
Burbank
Glendora
Los
Angeles
Torrance
Long
Beach
Newport
Beach
Huntington
Beach
San
Clemente
Dana
Point
Laguna
Beach San Juan
Capistrano
Santa
Ana
Costa
Mesa
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Yorba
Linda
Irvine
Moreno
Valley
Sun
City
Perris
Project
Site
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-2
Site Vicinity
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
395
395
15 15
18 Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
City Boundary
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-4 Project Description
R-4, and MDR); Light and Heavy Industrial (zoning: M -1 through M -2, and IPD); Open Space; Office Professional (zoning: C-A); and a variety of Specific Plan designations (zoning: SP).
2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is bounded by the cities of Apple Valley to the east, Hesperia to the south, and Adelanto to the west .
Multiple land uses and zoning occur in close proximity to the project site in the adjoining cities due to the city -wide nature of the project. Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Apple Valley include, but are not li mited to, Regional Commercial (C-R), Estate Residential (R-E), Open Space Conservation (OS -C), and Specific Plan (SP). Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Hesperia include, but are not limited to, Convenience Commercial (C1), General Commercial (C2), Service Commercial (C3), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), General Manufacturing (I2), Office Park (OP), Rural Residential (RR -2), Utility Corridor (UC), and Aqueduct (AQ). Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Adelanto include, but are not limited to, Desert Living (DL), Airport Development District (ADD), Business Park (BP), Light Manufacturing (LM), Commercial (C), Single Family Residential (R-1), and High Density Residential (R3-30).
2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
As discussed above, the City of Victorville Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and operating the City’s flood control system in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner for protection of property and for public saf ety. Routine maintenance of the City’s flood control system is required to ensure the long -term function, flow capacity, and infrastructure sustainability. Often times these systems require routine maintenance following rain events to restore capacity, repair already authorized improvements and remove undesired vegetation establishment, accumulation of debris and litter, and accumulated sediments that reduce flow capacity and increase the potential for flooding that could damage property and threaten public safety.
In order to restore the City’s flood control system to its baseline design capacity as well as to maintain its future effectiveness, the City has identified specific maintenance activities, methods, and procedures for the routine maintenance of the flood control facilities evaluated in this Initial Study.
2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project, herein referenced as the p roject, consists of a City- wide routine maintenance program for 127 City-owned flood control facilities and detention basins maintained by the City of Victorville Public Works Department , refer to Exhibits 2 -3a through 2-3d, Proposed Project Site. The purpose for flood control facility maintenance is to protect public infrastructure including roadway right -of- way (ROW), sewer mains, high pressure fuel transmission pipes, and pipe outlets, public and private property, and ensure stormwater conveyance is unimpeded. The project goals and objectives are as follows:
1. Flood Protection
• Reduce flooding risk to public and private property and ensure public safety; • Protect life and property adjacent to, downstream, and upstream of flood control facilities from flooding; and
• Protect essential City infrastructure that could be affected by flooding or degradation, including City ROW, easements, and other utility infrastructure (i.e. high-pressure gas mains, sewer lines).
2. Infrastructure Maintenance
• Maintain public infrastructure including flood control facilities and roadway ROW; and • Reduce future operational costs through proactive maintenance.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3A
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
15 15
POWERLINE RD
GAS LINE RD
APPLE VALLEY RD
ABBY LN
HOPLAND ST
AIR EXPRESSWAY
PHANTOM
QUARRY RD
SDMA-NW-00004
SDMA-NW-00005
SDMA-NW-00027
SDMA-NW-00006
SDMA-NW-00012
SDMA-NW-00015
SDMA-NW-00023
SDMA-NW-00022
SDMA-NW-00024
SDMA-NW-00025
SDMA-NW-00026
SDMA-NE-00018
SDMA-NE-00031
SDMA-NE-00014
SDMA-NE-00015
SDMA-NE-00013
SDMA-NE-00010
SDMA-NE-00009
SDMA-NE-00007
SDMA-NE-00008
SDMA-NE-00006
SDMA-NE-00005 SDMA-NE-00003
SDMA-NE-00004
SDMA-NE-00012
SDMA-NE-00011
SDMA-NW-00020
SDMA-NW-00023-1
SDMA-NW-00010
SDMA-NW-00011
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-6 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3B
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
CALENDULA ST
BELLFLOWER ST
PEARMAN ST
SENECA RD
ONYX RD
HOPLAND ST
395
SDMA-NW-00020
SDMA-NW-00023
SDMA-NW-00032
SDMA-NW-00044
SDMA-SW-00011
SDMA-SW-0009-9A
SDMA-SW-0009
SDMA-SW-0010
SDMA-SW-0019
SDMA-SW-0020
SDMA-SW-0021
SDMA-SW-0008
SDMA-SW-0007
SDMA-SW-0006
SDMA-SW-0023
SDMA-SW-0022
SDMA-SW-0005
SDMA-SW-0004
SDMA-SW-0003
SDMA-SW-0007-7A
SDMA-NW-00043
SDMA-NW-00031
SDMA-NW-00031-1
SDMA-NW-00041
SDMA-NW-00042
SDMA-NW-00030
SDMA-NW-00029
SDMA-NW-00030-1
SDMA-NW-00033SDMA-NW-00037 SDMA-NW-00034
SDMA-NW-00035
SDMA-NW-00035-1
SDMA-NW-00036SDMA-NW-00038
SDMA-NW-00045
SDMA-NW-00047
SDMA-NW-00040
SDMA-NW-00046
SDMA-NW-00022
SDMA-NW-00023-1
SDMA-SW-0001
SDMA-SW-0002
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-8 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3C
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
NISQUALLI RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
74TH AVE
SENECA RD
OUTER BEAR VALLEY RD
18 SDMA-NW-00043
SDMA-NW-00044
SDMA-NW-00011
SDMA-SE-00002
SDMA-SE-00004
SDMA-SE-00001
SDMA-SE-00001-1A
SDMA-SE-00030
SDMA-SE-00021
SDMA-SE-00025
SDMA-SE-00026
SDMA-SE-00021A
SDMA-SE-00031
SDMA-SW-00012
SDMA-SW-0009-9A
SDMA-SW-0009
SDMA-SW-0010SDMA-SW-0008
SDMA-SW-00013
SDMA-SW-00014
SDMA-SE-00005
SDMA-NE-00033 SDMA-NE-00028
SDMA-NE-00029
SDMA-NE-00030-30A
SDMA-NE-00030
SDMA-NE-00027
SDMA-NE-00026
SDMA-NE-00025
SDMA-SE-00008
SDMA-SE-00008-8A
SDMA-SE-00006
SDMA-5
SDMA-SE-00032
SDMA-SE-00029
SDMA-SE-00017
SDMA-SE-00014
SDMA-SE-00016SDMA-SE-00015
SDMA-SE-00015
SDMA-SE-00010
SDMA-SE-00007
SDMA-SE-00011
SDMA-NE-00024
SDMA-NE-00023
SDMA-NE-00022
SDMA-NE-00021
SDMA-SE-00019
SDMA-SE-00018-18A
SDMA-SE-
00018-18A
SDMA-SE-
00019-19A
SDMA-SE-00028
SDMA-SE-
00016-16A
SDMA-SE-
00016-16A
SDMA-NE-00020
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
KEY MAP
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-10 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3D
Proposed Project Site
05/2021 JN 174323
NOT TO SCALE
EUCALYPTUS ST
MESA VIEW DR
AMARGOSA RD
BALDY MESA RD
SMOKE TREE RD
395
SDMA-SW-00018
SDMA-SW-00018
SDMA-SW-00014SDMA-SW-00017 SDMA-SW-00016-16A
Source: Google Earth Pro, May 2021
City Boundary
Project Facilities
Facility Identifier
KEY MAP
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-12 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-13 Project Description
3. Environmental Resource Protection
• Inventory high-value aquatic resources and identify direct and indirect impacts to these resources . which may lead to degradation of these resources as a result of routine maintenance activities; and • Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate significant adverse environmental effects resulting from rou tine maintenance of flood control facilities.
Typical maintenance activities include vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in -channel erosion repair. A description of the proposed maintenance activities is included below.
2.4.1 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Vegetation management activities include the complete removal of vegetation as well as thinning and trimming activities. Vegetation management would be required at specific facilities where vegetation growth is present or may be present in the future to ensure sufficient flood conveyance capacity is maintained. Where feasible, vegetation removal would focus on the removal and eradication of non-native invasive species and thinning or trimming of natives.
However, vegetation removal, including native species, may be required to achieve baseline flow capacity of the flood control facility. Vegetation management would primarily be accomplished using field crews and hand tools as well as agency approved herbicide application.
2.4.2 SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS REMOVAL
Sediment and debris removal involve the removal of excess accumulated sediment and/or debris including trash, construction debris (concrete rubble), vehicles tires, shopping carts, and other waste. Sediment removal would occur on an as needed basis to remove excess accumulated sediment that may inhibit the established flow line and reduce flood capacity thereby increasing potential for localized flooding. The amount of anticipated sediment removal varies among facilities based on facility type, size, and location. Most facilities identified for sediment removal would typically require between five and 60 cubic yards (CY) of sediment removal on an annual basis or after significant storm events, with specific facilities requiring removal in excess of 1,000 CY. The estimated sediment removal for each drainage facility is outlined in Table 2-1.
Sediment removal via excavation would be conducted by using a backhoe loader, dump truck, and a compact track loader (bobcat). Specific facilities may require a dozer and excavator for sediment removal. The extent of sediment removal would occur to the as -built or established maintenance baseline of the flood control facility and would not increase or expand facility capacity beyond the original design. The maximum depth of excavation would not be expected to exceed five feet below ground surface (bgs). Typical excavation activities would remove the top six to 12 inches of sediment.
2.4.3 BANK STABILIZATION AND CHANNEL REPAIR
Lack of maintenance and significant storm events can result in damage to flood control facilities in the form of scour, undermining, piping, cracking, and stress on the existing infrastructure , which threatens adjacent property, public safety, increases downstream sediment yields, generates erosion, and may impact riparian habitat or other resource values. Bank stabilization and in- channel repair activities would need to occur periodically to return damaged flood control facilities to the as-built, original design condition, or an otherwise approved, stable condition. These activities primarily involve minor bank erosion repair using earthen material, rock or riprap replacement, and in-channel erosion repair using earthen material. Where feasible, earthen fill material would be acquired on -site or imported from other sediment removal projects within the program; refer to Table 2-1. These repair activities may occur at all flood control facilities on an as needed basis and are anticipated to occur annually.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-14 Project Description
Bank stabilization and channel repair activities would be conducted by using a backhoe loader, dump truck, compactor, a compact track loader (bobcat), bulldozer, excavator, as well as field crews and hand tools. The extent of s ediment removal would occur to the as -built or es tablished maintenance baseline of the flood control facility and would not increase or expand facility capacity beyond the original design.
The primary repair method includes excavation and/or dredging, then engineered backfill of soils.
2.5 CONSTRUCTION/PHASING
Maintenance activities would occur on an as needed basis. The majority of flood control facilities are generally anticipated to receive maintenance activities annually or after significant storm events. However, a subset of five flood control facilities are identified as requiring maintenance every six months, or twice annually. The majority of flood control maintenance work would be accomplished within 8 to 10 hours or generally within one day. Based on the size, location, condition, and maintenance frequency, approximately 12 facilities would require more than one day of work and up to 36 hours to complete the required maintenance. The frequency and duration of maintenance activities is outlined for each flood control facility in Table 2-1.
2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City and other applicable agency approvals required for project implementation would include, but are not limited to, the following:
City of Victorville
• California Environmental Quality Act Clearance
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
• Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Approved Jurisdictional Determination
California Department and Fish and Wildlife
• Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) (only required if a Section 404 permit is issued from the Corps)
• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-15 Project Description
Table 2-1
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NE-00001 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.88 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00002 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.88 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00003 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.61 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00004 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.61 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00005 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.46 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00006 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.46 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00007 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.15 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00008 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at 1.15 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00009 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at 1 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00010 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at .97 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. --
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-16 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NE-00011 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at .97 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00012 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at .85 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road. Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00013 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at .85 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00014 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at .58 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00015 50 feet east of Stoddard Wells Road at .58 mile northeast of Dante Street along the Stoddard Wells Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00018 50 feet west of Stoddard Wells Road at .2 mile south of Abbey Lane Protect Road ROW Annual
10 CY - Combined
Trash/Debris/
Vegetation
2 Hrs. --
SDMA-NE-00020 Oro Grande Wash north of Seneca Road 1000 feet west of Hesperia Road to county marker on Hesperia Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00021 100 feet east of eastern end of Seneca Road at Lorene Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00022 100 feet east of eastern end of Crestview Drive north of Crestview Place Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00023 100 feet from the pavement at eastern end of Montecito Drive east of Holly Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00024 100 feet from the edge of pavement at eastern end of Foresthills Drive 50 feet east of Foresthills Court Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00025 100 feet from edge of pavement in eastern end of Glenview Drive at Fairhaven Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00026 100 feet south from the edge of pavement in southern end of Meadow Grove Drive at Gibralter Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-17 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NE-00027 100 feet from the edge of pavement in southeast end of Cherry Hill Drive south of Baywood Way Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00028 100 feet from the edge of pavement in southeast end of Montecito Drive east of Apple Creek Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. Fill erosion at end of pavement
SDMA-NE-00029 350 feet east of Rodeo Drive south of Batson Place. Back side of houses at drainage pipe inlet
Remove debris from
pipe inlet Annual 5 CY 2 Hrs.
Drainpipe Inlet located on
Private Property/Natural
Drainage Course
SDMA-NE-00030 300 feet east of Rodeo Drive south side of City View Drive Remove debris from pipe inlet Annual 5 CY 2 Hrs.
Drainpipe Inlet located on
Private Property/Natural
Drainage Course
SDMA-NE-00030-
00030A
300 feet east of Rodeo Drive and 405 feet South of City View Drive
Remove debris from
pipe outlet Annual 5 CY 2 Hrs.
Drainpipe outlet located on
Private Property/Natural
Drainage Course
SDMA-NE-00031 10 feet by10 feet at outfalls in west side of Stoddard Wells Road 1500 feet north of Dante Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00032 100 feet north side of Trinidad Drive east of Deauville Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NE-00033 100 feet south side of Trinidad Drive east of Deauville Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 2 Hrs. -- SDMA-NW-00004 North side of Air Express Way 900 fee west of Village Drive Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located to east of
channel
Annual None 27 Hrs. --
SDMA-NW-00005 South side of Air Express Way 900 feet west of Village Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. -- SDMA-NW-00006 100 feet north of Rancho Road at 350 feet east of El Evado Road Protect Road ROW
Annual & after
major rainstorm
event
30 CY 9 Hrs. --
SDMA-NW-00010 Drainage Channel in north side of Rancho Road halfway between Gasline Road and Crabapple Lane
Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual 30 CY 4 Hrs --
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-18 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NW-00011 Drainage Channel in south side of Rancho Road halfway between Gasline Road and Crabapple Lane
Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual 30 CY 4 Hrs --
SDMA-NW-00012 100 feet north of Filkins Street and Vasquez Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual None 4 Hrs Maintenance performed in
ROW only. Natural
Drainage Course on Private
Property.
SDMA-NW-00015 100 feet northwest in northwest corner of Enramada Road and Cahuenga Road
Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. --
SDMA-NW-00020 South side of Hopland Street 1/3 mile west of El Evado Road
Protect Drainage
Channel/Surrounding
Properties
Annual 20 CY 36 Hrs
This entire Drainage
Channel, Hopland Road to
Tawyney Ridge Road will
be maintained.
SDMA-NW-00022 North side of Village Drive 200 feet west of Amargosa Road Protect Road ROW Annual None 9 Hrs. Fill erosion - 5 CY SDMA-NW-00023 South side of Village Drive 200 feet west of Amargosa Road Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion - 5 CY SDMA-NW-00023
- 1 South side of Village Drive 600 feet south at Placida Road Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion - 5 CY SDMA-NW-00024 100 south in south side of Village Drive west of 16085 Village Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 4 Hrs. Natural Drainage Course on Private Prop.
SDMA-NW-00025 100 feet north of north side of Puesta Del Sol Drive 100 feet east of Cazadero Road
Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual None 9 Hrs.
Fill erosion - 20 CY -
Master Drainage Plan Line
D-02
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-19 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NW-00026 100 feet east from east end of Tawney Ridge Lane east of Victoria Drive
Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual None 4 Hrs. Fill Erosion
SDMA-NW-00027 100 feet west in west side of National Trails Highway, north of 16350 National Trails Highway, at 1/4 mile north of I-15 Protect Road ROW &
sewer main which is
located in the
immediate vicinity of
the channel
Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill Erosion
SDMA-NW-00029 100 feet north in north side of Del Norte Drive 500 feet west of Amargosa Road
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-00030 100 feet south in south side of Del Norte Drive 500 feet west of Amargosa Road
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-
00030-1
100 feet south in south Side of Mojave Dr. 500 feet west of Amargosa Road
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-00031 100 feet north of north Side of Mojave Drive Between El Evado Road and L.A. Bureau of Power Road Protect Road ROW 6 Months 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-
00031-1
150 feet north of north Side of Mojave Drive Between El Evado Road and L.A. Bureau of Power Road Protect Road ROW 6 Months 10 CY 9 Hrs. -- SDMA-NW-00032 100 feet north in north Side of Mojave Drive 2/10 mile west of East Trail Protect Road ROW 6 Months 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00033 100 feet north in north Side of Mojave Drive 300 feet west of west trail Protect Road ROW 6 Months 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00034 100 feet north of north Side of Mojave Drive 3/10 mile east of Cobalt Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00035 100 feet S in S Side of Mojave Drive 3/10 mile east of Cobalt Road Protect Channel Annual 40 CY 40 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-
00035-1
Extend Location #35 to #40 - Include entire drainage
channel Maintenance requirements are stated in location #35, #35-1 & #40 -- SDMA-NW-00036 100 feet south of south side of Mojave Drive 20 feet west of Cobalt Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. --
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-20 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-NW-00037 100 feet north in north side of Mojave Drive 1/2 mile west of Cobalt Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00038 100 feet south in S side of Mojave Drive 1/2 mile west of Cobalt Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00040 West Creek east side Cobalt Road from Hook Boulevard to Mojave Drive Maintenance requirements are stated in location #35, #35-1 & #40 -- SDMA-NW-00041 100 feet east in east side of El Evado Road 1,000 feet south of Mojave Drive Protect Road ROW 6 Months 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00042 100 feet north of north end of Breamar Drive Protect Road ROW & Sewer Main Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-00043 100 feet south of south side of Seneca Road at Southtrail Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00044 North 100 feet west end of Begonia Road from 0.25 miles west of El Evado Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-NW-00045 North of Hook Boulevard east of Flamenco Place to Diamond Road
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-00046 Diamond Road north of Castaway Lane to S.C. Edison Place
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-NW-00047 North of Hook Boulevard east of Cobalt Road detention basin & drainage channel
Protect Road ROW &
Property Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00001 50 to 100 feet of Oro Gande Wash in northeast corner of the outlets in east side of Mariposa Road Protect Road ROW Annual & After
Major Rainstorm
event
10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00001-
1A
Detention basin east of I-15 & West of Mariposa Road
south of Oro Grande Wash freeway crossing
Protect Road &
Freeway ROW
Annual & After
Major Rainstorm
event
10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00002 100 feet north starting from northern edge of pavement of Balsam Road in north of Winona Street
Protect Road &
Freeway ROW
Annual & After
Major Rainstorm
event
10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00004 Oro Grande Wash in south of Ottawa Street between 11th Avenue and Cabazon Place
Protect Sewer Main
& Property Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-21 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-SE-00005
Northeast direction 700 feet of Oro Grande Wash starting from the inlet in north side of Ottawa Street at Cabazon Place
Protect Sewer Main
& Property Annual 10 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00006 Southwest corner of Cypress Avenue and Yates Road Protect Sewer Main & Property Annual 30,000 CY 27 Hrs. Desilt 550 feet south of Yates Road
SDMA-SE-00006-
6A
Oro Grande Wash - connect to location #6 & location #32, as a single maintenance location Maintenance requirements are stated in location #6 SDMA-SE-00007 100 feet east of drainage outlet in the east side of Hesperia Road 200 feet south of Coad Road Protect Road ROW Annual None 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00008 100 feet from the drainage outlet in the east side of Arrowhead Drive south of Petite Street Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00008 Extend location #8 an additional 50 feet north Maintenance requirements are stated in location #8 SDMA-SE-00009 100 feet east from the drainage outlet at east end of Grant Street 200 feet east of Lambert Lane
Ensure Flow of Storm
Water Annual 20 CY 5 Hrs. Clear Sand from Outlet
SDMA-SE-00010 100 feet west of drainage inlet west side of Hesperia Road 300 feet north of Eureka Street Protect Road ROW Annual 20 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00011 100 feet east of drainage outlet in the east side of Hesperia Road 300 feet south of Coad Road Protect Road ROW Annual None 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00014 100 feet from the Outlet in west side of Hesperia Road at Ottawa Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00015 100 feet west from the drainage inlet in west side of Hesperia Road 100 feet north of Ottawa Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00016 100 feet east of drainage channel on east side of Hesperia Road 100 feet north of Ottawa Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00016-
16A
East of Enterprise Way, 1,425 feet east of end of Nutro Way, at end of service road
Ensure Flow of Storm
Water Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00016-
16B East of Enterprise Way, south of Ottawa Street Ensure Flow of Storm Water Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00017 100 feet east of drainage channel on east side of Hesperia Road 2/10 mile north of Nisqualli Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-22 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-SE-00018-
18A
Detention basin at northwest corner of High Crest Street and Hill Crest Street
Ensure Flow of Storm
Water Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00018-
18B
Detention basin at southeast corner of Park Glen Street and High Vista Street
Ensure Flow of Storm
Water Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00019 East side of Industrial Boulevard at Silica Drive to Sante Fe Channel
Protect Sewer Main
& Property Annual 60 CY 36 Hrs. --
SDMA-SE-00019-
19A
Sante Fe Wash (portions with intermittent concrete channel) west of BNSF Rail easement, from Silica Road to 1,000 feet north of Coad Road
Ensure Flow of Storm
Water Annual 500 CY 80 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00020 100 feet north of Silica Drive at Highgate Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00021 North side of Silica Drive 200 feet east of 5th Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00021-
00021A South side of Silica Drive 200 feet east of 5th Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00022 Southeast corner of 5th Avenue and Silica Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00023 West side of 5th Avenue 90 feet south of Silica Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00025 Both sides of 3rd Avenue 900 feet north of Bear Valley Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00026 North side of Bear Valley Road west of 3rd Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00028 100 feet east of 2nd Avenue 300 feet south of Jasmine Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00029 100 feet south side of Jasmine Street 200 feet west of 1st Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00030 West side of Balsam Road north of Lone Eagle Street Protect Road ROW Annual & During
& After Major
Rainstorm event
1,000 CY 18 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SE-00031 East side of Cottonwood Avenue at Pahute Avenue Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SE-00032 South end of Nassau Drive, Bel Air Drive, Elcona Drive Maintenance requirements are stated in location #6 This location is connected
to location #6 & #6A as a
single Maintenance location
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-23 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-SW-00001 North of Dos Palmas Road at 150 feet west of Feather Rock Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00002 South of Maricopa Road and Feather Rock Street Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00003 Settling basin at Dos Palmas & US-395 Protect Road ROW Annual 100 CY 40 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00004 West side of US-395 between Luna Road and Dos Palmas Road Protect Road ROW Annual 60 CY 40 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00005 Northeast corner of Luna Road and Cantina Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00006 Southwest corner of Luna Road and Cantina Drive Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00007 100 feet north of Comet Drive at 250 feet west of Topaz Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-0007-
7A
Pipe inlet, south of Dos Palmas Road, 275 feet west of
Topaz Road Protect Road ROW Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00008 Southwest corner of Amethyst Road and Dos Palmas Road Protect Road ROW Annual 30 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00009 Northeast corner of Amethyst Road and Dos Palmas Road Protect Road ROW Annual 20 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-0009-
9A
Northeast corner of Amethyst Road and Dos Palmas Road,
200 feet north of location #9 Protect Road ROW Annual 20 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00010 Settling basin at Rafael Way at Fox Point Road Ensure Flow of Storm Water Annual 20 Cy 18 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00011 Northern half of Anacapa Road up to the ROW between El Evado Road and 330 feet west of Del Gado Road Protect Road ROW Annual 30 CY 5 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00012 North side of Kings Ranch Road at Oro Grande Wash Protect Road ROW &
ensure flow through
channel
Annual & During
& After Major
Rainstorm event
60 Cy 27 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00013 Oro Grande Wash between Petaluma Road and Kings Ranch Road
Protect Road ROW &
ensure flow through
channel
Annual & During
& After Major
Rainstorm event
60 Cy 36 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00014
North side of Bear Valley Road starting from Oro Grande Wash inlet in the west of Dunia Road going northeast
direction up to 650 feet west of Petaluma Road
Protect Road ROW &
ensure flow through
channel
Annual & During
& After Major
Rainstorm event
60 Cy 18 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00015 East side of Topaz Road 420 feet south of Redrock Road Protect Road ROW Annual 5 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-24 Project Description
Table 2-1 (continued)
Flood Control Facilities Maintenance Activities
Location
Identifier Location Name Purpose of
Maintenance
Frequency of
Maintenance
Cubic Yards of
Sediment Removal
Duration of
Activity Additional Comments
SDMA-SW-
00016-16A
North side of Bear Valley Road 1200 feet west of Mesa
View Drive 50 feet north of ROW
Protect Road ROW &
High-Pressure Fuel
Transmission Pipe
Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00017 North side of Bear Valley Road at 650 feet west of Bell flower Street
Protect Road ROW &
High-Pressure Fuel
Transmission Pipe
Annual 10 CY 6 Hrs. Fill erosion
SDMA-SW-00018 100 feet east from the drainage outlet in the east side of Eucalyptus Street & Cloverly Avenue Protect Pipe Outlet Annual 20 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00019 North side of Luna Road east of L.A. Bureau of Power Road 700 feet west of Wrangler Lane Protect Pipe Outlet Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00020 South side of Luna Road east of L.A. Bureau of Power Road 700 feet west of Wrangler Lane Protect Pipe Outlet Annual 10 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00021 100 feet northwest of channel between 13504 and 13496 Prospector Road north of Wrangler Lane Protect Pipe Outlet Annual 5 CY 4 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00022 Detention basin Mesa View Drive and Barrington Street Protect Road ROW Annual 50 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion SDMA-SW-00023 Detention basin Mesa View Drive and Fern Pine Street Protect Road ROW Annual 50 CY 9 Hrs. Fill erosion
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 3-1 Initial Study Checklist
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California 92392
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Doug Mathews
760.955.5200
4. Project Location: The project site consists of 127 water conveyance and detention facilities and operated by the City which are distributed throughout City limits.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California 92392
6. General Plan Designation: The project site is designated Commercial, High/Medium/Low/Very Low Density Residential, Light/Heavy Industrial, Open Space, Office Professional, and a variety of Specific Plan designations by the Victorville General Plan 2030.
7. Zoning: The project site is zoned Commercial (C-1, C-2, and CM); Residential (R -1 through R-4, and MDR); Industrial (M-1 through M-2, and IPD); Open Space; Office Professional (C-A); and Specific Plan (SP) by the City of Victorville Zoning Map.
8. Description of the Project:
The project consists of a City-wide routine maintenance program for 127 City-owned flood control facilities and detention basins. Methods of flood control facility maintenance would include vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is bounded by the cities of Apple Valley to the east, Hesperia to the south, and Adelanto to the west. Multiple land uses and zoning occur in close proximity to the project site in the adjoining cities due to the city-wide nature of the project. Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Apple Valley include, but are not limited to, Regional Commercial (C-R), Estate Residential (R-E), Open Space Conservation (OS -C), and Specific Plan (SP). Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Hesperia include, but are not limited to, Convenience Commercial (C1), General Commercial (C2), Service Commercial (C3), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Gene ral Manufacturing (I2), Office Park (OP), Rural Residential (RR-2), Utility Corridor (UC), and Aqueduct (AQ).
Land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site in the City of Adelanto include, but are not limited to, Desert Living (DL), Airpor t Development District (ADD), Business Park (BP), Light Manufacturing (LM), Commercial (C), Single Family Residential (R-1), and High Density Residential (R3- 30).
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 3-2 Initial Study Checklist
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement).
City of Victorville
• California Environmental Quality Act Clearance
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
• Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Approved Jurisdictional Determination
California Department and Fish and Wildlife
• Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) (only required if a Section 404 permit is issued from the Corps)
• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR)
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 3-3 Initial Study Checklist
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this p roject, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Noise
Air Quality Population and Housing
Biological Resources Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
Energy Transportation
Geology and Soils Tribal Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wildfire
Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance Land Use and Planning
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Victorv ille in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:
• No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 3-4 Initial Study Checklist
• Less Than Significant Impact . The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.
• Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . The de velopment will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
• Potentially Significant Impact . The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.1-1 Aesthetics
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? ( Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed. 1 Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features .
Other designated f ederal and State lands, as well as local open space or recreational areas, may also offer scen ic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape of nearby features.
The project site affords partial or full views of the Mojave River and surrounding mountains. The most visually prominent aesthetic features located near the project site is Quartzite Mountain to the north, the Mojave Narrows to the northeast, and the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain ranges to the south. Distant views of these scenic resources can be experienced from many portions of the project site and by motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists traveling along local roadways within the project vicinity.
During the short -term construction process, potential views in the project area would remain similar to existing conditions, as the project proposes maintenance activities to the City’s flood control system, restoring baseline design capacities. The project’s construction activities may be visible from these designated view areas. However, construction impacts are short-term and would cease upon completion. Additionally, implementation of the required permits for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as the required Best Management Practices (BMPs), would reduce potential impacts from visible dust and dirt track out areas. Therefore, short -term impacts in this regard are less than significant.
1 A viewshed is the geographical area which is visible from a particular location.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.1-2 Aesthetics
The project would not result in impacts to scenic vistas on a long-term operational basis. As noted above, the project would involve maintenance of drainage facilities limited to the extent of restoring baseline design capacities. The project would not increase or expand facility capacity beyond the original design, and no new facilities or structures capable of adverse effects on a scenic vista would occur. Thus, no long-term impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. No designated State scenic highways occur within the City. Located within the project vicinity, Historic Route 66 (National Trails Highway) is designated as a County of San Bernardino Scenic Highway .
Motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists traveling southbound on Historic Route 66 are currently afforded views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain ranges to the south/southwest. Northbound travelers are afforded views of the Quartzite Mountain to the north/northeast. The project site is also within the viewshed of southbound and northbound viewers along Historic Route 66.
Joshua Trees occur within the project vicinity and contribute to the unique natural desert environment within the City.
Joshua Trees are protected by the State through the California Desert Plan Protection Act and the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 13.33, which prohibits the destruction or removal of Joshua trees without written consent from the Director of Community Services.
The proposed improvements are located within the existing flood control facilities. Project implementation would not require the disturbance of trees or buildings. The project’s construction activities would be visible from views along Historic Route 66; however, construction impacts are short -term and would cease upon completion. Additionally, implementation of the required permits for the RWQCB (i.e., NPDES, SWPPP, and BMPs) would further reduce visual impacts during construction. Therefore, impacts in this regard are less than significant.
Views along Historic Route 66 would remain similar to existing conditions during project operations, as the proposed would restore baseline design capabilities of the existing flood control system . The project would not increase or expand facility capacity beyond the original design, and no new facilities or structures capable of adverse effects on a scenic highway would occur. Thus, no long-term impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbaniz ed area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing flood control system occurs in both urbanized and non-urbanized areas throughout the City. During project construction activities, the existing visual character may be temporarily altered.
Construction-related activities would disrupt views from surrounding areas. C onstruction equipment and truck traffic would be visible. Additionally, equipment for construction activities would be staged at various locations. Construction- related activities would be visible from the surrounding uses. Alt hough construction activities would be visible, the proposed areas of disturbance would remain within the existing flood control facilities. Also, construction activities at any particular location in the project area would be short -term and would cease u pon completion. Therefore, since construction-related activities are anticipated to be short -term, and would only be located within the existing flood control uses, impacts are less than significant.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.1-3 Aesthetics
On a long-term (operational) basis, a project is generally considered to have a significant visual/aesthetic impact if it substantially changes the character of the project site such that it becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. The existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would be similar to existing conditions as the project would restore baseline design capabilities at each flood facility. The project would not conflict with existing zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Thus, the project’s potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent uses and diminish the view of the clear night sky.
Light and glare in the project vicinity are primarily associated with adjacent residential neighborhoods, including vehicular headlights, streetlights, and private residences.
Project construction could involve temporary glare impacts as a result of construction equipment and materials.
However, based on the project’s limited construction duration and scope of activities, these sources of glare would not be substantial. Further, construction activities associated with project implementation would not occur during nighttime hours and would not require nighttime lighting.
The project does not propose new sources of lighting along the flood control facilities. No new sources of light or glare would occur at project completion. Thus, impacts in this regard would not occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.1-4 Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non- forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Based on the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, locations of the City’s flood control facilities are not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance .1 Locations of the flood control facilities are currently utilized for urban uses or natural vegetation /non-agricultural use.
As such, conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use by the project would not occur. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The flood control facilities and detention basins that make up the project are not located within a areas that are zoned for agricultural use withi n the City of Victorville. According to the General Plan EIR, there are parcels within the project vicinity that are under an existing Williamson Act Contract. However, these parcels are located approximately 0.75-mile northeast from the nearest flood control facility.2 Therefore, since the project site is not zoned
1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed July 18, 2023. 2 San Bernardino County Assessor Clerk, Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer , https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a, accessed July 18, 2023.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract, the project would not conflict with these land uses and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. There is no property within the City that is occupied or used for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-1 Air Quality
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable Federal or S tate ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact . The project site is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District ( MDAQMD). The Mojave Desert Planning Area Federal Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Plan (herein refer to as the PM10 Attainment Plan) was prepared in July 1995 to provide a complete description and submittal to EPA of the PM 10 attainment planning elements which the MDAQMD will implement to bring the nonattainment area into compliance with federal law. MDAQMD adopted the MDAQMD Federal 70 ppb Ozone Attainment Plan (Western Mojave Desert Nonattainment Area) (herein refer to as the Ozone Attainment Plan) which replaces or updates all previously submitted federal ozone plans, on January 23, 2023, to satisfy FCAA requirements that the MDAQMD develop a plan to attain the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The MDAQMD PM
10 Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan established under the Western Mojave Desert Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) set forth a comprehensive set of programs intended to lead the Basin into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards. The control measures and related emission reduction estimates within the MDAQMD PM
10 Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characte ristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with these attainment plans is determined by demonstrating compliance with:
• Local land use plans and/or population projections (Criterion 1), • All MDAQMD Rules and Regulations (Criterion 2); and
• Demonstrating the project will not increase the frequency or severity of a violation in the Federal or State ambient air quality standards (Criterion 3).
Criterion 1
Implementation of the proposed project would involve routine maintenance activities on City -owned flood control facilities and detention basins. Typical maintenance activities include vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair. No new land uses or development are proposed within the existing flood control facilities that could directly or indirectly result in population growth. Thus, the proposed City-wide maintenance activities would not conflict with the City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (General Plan) land use designations of each flood control facility/detention basin and would have no impact on the City’s growth projections, including those in the General Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ Connect
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-2 Air Quality
SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Criterion 2
The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations. This would include MDAQMD Rule 403.2, which requires periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface area to minimize visible fugitive dust (PM 10) emissions, covering loaded haul vehicles, and reduction of non -essential earth moving activities during higher wind conditions. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable MDAQMD Rules and Regulations. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Criterion 3
Since the consistency criteria identified under Criterion 3 pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations associated with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed under Response 4.3(b), the proposed project short-term construction would comply with all applicable MDAQMD rules and regulation . Additionally, short -term construction emissions would be less than significant during construction. Further, the project would not generate any additional operational emissions at completion of each maintenance activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Conclusion
As detailed above, the project would comply with all three criteria. The project would not conflict with applicable local land use plans and/or population projections; would comply with all MDAQMD Rules and Regulations; and would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. As such, the project would conform with the MDAQMD PM 10 Attainment Plan and Ozone Attainment Plan and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Criteria Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide ( CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon -based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in hi gh altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of CO.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere.
The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O
3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O 3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-3 Air Quality
compounds (VOCs), NO X, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NO X are O 3 precursors. To reduce O 3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O 3 precursors. Significant O 3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O 3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While O
3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O 3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre -existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O 3. Short -term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O 3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOX, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Peak readings of NO 2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO 2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO
2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM 10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one -millionths of a meter. PM 10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM 10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24- hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM 2.5 standards have been created.
Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre -existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM
2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB t hat previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide -ranging. Lastly, on March 7, 2017, CARB released its revised 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (State SIP Strategy), describing the proposed commitment to achieve the reductions necessary from mobile sources, fuels, and consumer products to meet federal ozone and PM
2.5 standards over the next 15 years.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX).
Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-4 Air Quality
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O
3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O
3, which is a criteria pollutant. The MDAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, reactive organic gases (ROG) are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O 3, which is a
criteria pollutant. As stated, the MDAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC interchangeably.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Toxic air contaminants (TACs) (also referred to as hazardous air pollutants [HAPs]), are pollutants that result in an increase in mortality, a serious illness, or pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects of TACs may include cancer, birth defects, and immune system and neurological damage.
TACs can be separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological degradation associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is a safe level in which it is generally assumed that no negative health impacts would occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by- pollutant basis.
TACs are not considered criteria air pollutants and thus are not specifically addressed through the setting of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the EPA and CARB regulate H APs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology (MACT or BACT) to limit emissions.
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions
Construction Emissions
Primary components of the proposed maintenance activities would involve vegetation management (e.g., vegetation removal, thinning, and trimming), sediment and debris removal, and bank stabilization and channel repair (e.g., minor bank erosion repair, rock or riprap replacement, and in-channel erosion repair). Maintenance activities would occur on an as needed basis. The majority of flood control facilities are generally anticipated to receive maintenance activities annually or after significant storm events. However, a subset of five flood control facilities are identified as requiring maintenance every six months. The majority of flood control maintenance work would be accomplished within eight to 10 hours or generally within one day. Based on the size, location, condition, and maintenance frequency, approximately 12 facilities would require more than one day work and up to 36 hours to complete the required maintenance.
Table 4.3-1, Maximum Short-Term Construction Emissions, provides the construction emissions associated with the project’s most intense maintenance activity, or the most conservative worst -case scenario. The worst-case scenario involves annual maintenance of SDMA-SE-00006 (southwest corner of Cypress Avenue and Yates Road), SDMA-SE- 00006-6A (Oro Grande Wash), and SDMA -SE-00032 (south end of Nassau Drive, Bel Air Drive, and Elcona Drive), including vegetation clearing and trash/debris removal. The worst -case scenario assumes the three adjacent flood control facilities would be maintained in one phase. Based on information provided by the City, approximately 30 cubic
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-5 Air Quality
yards of vegetation /trash and 30,000 cubic yards of sediment would need to be removed from these flood control facilities for a duration of 10 hours per day for eight days.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the site. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on - or off-site. The a nalysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A , Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data , for the CalEEMod outputs and results.
Table 4.3-1
Maximum Short-Term Construction Emissions
As indicated in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed the established MDAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. During construction activities, the project would also be required to comply with standard MDAQMD regulations, such as Rule 403.2, which requires periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface area to minimize visible fugitive dust (PM
10) emissions, covering of loaded haul vehicles, and reduction of non -essential earth-moving activities during higher wind conditions. As such, less than significant construction impacts would occur.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut -and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (typically during demolition and construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short -term and would cease upon project completion. These short -term impacts, however, would not be significant for the reasons discussed below.
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions
Year 1 4.53 86.11 33.24 0.12 5.40 3.59
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.53 86.11 33.24 0.12 5.40 3.59 MDAQMD Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2 and EMFAC2017.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in CalEEMod. The mitigation includes complying MDAQMD Rule 403.2, which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces twice daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; and use CARB certified engines. Further, the project would comply with MDAQMD Rule 1113 which restricts the VOC content of architectural coating applications.
3. Regional daily construction thresholds are based on the MDAQMD significance thresholds.
Source: Refer to Appendix A for detailed model input/output data.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-6 Air Quality
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM 10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions.
PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM 2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re- suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NO
X and SOX combining with ammonia. PM 2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.
As stated, the project would implement all required MDAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering) and adhere to MDAQMD Rule 403.2, which requires periodic watering, covering loaded haul vehicles, and reducing non-essential earth moving activities during higher wind conditions to reduce fugitive dust concentrations. As provided in Table 4.3- 1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the MDAQMD thresholds during construction.
Construction Exhaust Emissions
Exhaust emissions would be generated by the operation of vehicles and equipment on the construction site, such as dozers, excavators, backhoes, and trucks. The majority of construction equipment and vehicles would be diesel powered, which tends to be more efficient than gasoline-powered equipment. Diesel -powered equipment produces lower CO and ROG emissions than gasoline equipment, but produces greater amounts of NOX, SOX, and particulates per hour of activity. The transportation of machinery, equipment, and materials to and from each flood control facility site, as well as construction worker trips, would also generate vehicle emissions during construction. As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction exhaust emissions would not exceed MDAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within Victorville. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.
Long-Term (Operational) Emissions
The project proposes maintenance activities in several City’s flood control facilities and detention basins. The project would not generate additional traffic trips when compared to existing conditions or create additional operational emissions at completion of each maintenance activity. As a result, the project would not generate operational emissions and no impacts would occur in this regard.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-7 Air Quality
Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age and gender]). In particular, O 3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality
on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (April 6, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno , the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form.
Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD ) (April 13, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.
The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O 3, as an example is correlated with the increases
in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire r egion. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NO X and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed MD AQMD thresholds for construction emissions, and operational air emissions would not change from existing conditions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts.
Conclusion
As summarized above, the project’s short-term construction emissions would be below the MDAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. Furthermore, the project would not result in long -term (operational) air quality impacts, as emissions would not change from existing conditions. Thus, the project’s construction and operational emissions would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable air quality impact for nonattainment criteria pollutants in the Basin. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-8 Air Quality
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.).
In order to identify CO hotspots, the South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct (SCAQMD) criterion was utilized since the MDAQMD does not currently have a preferred methodology. The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of CO hotspots when a project increases the volume-to-capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at intersections.
The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. Nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions. 1 CO emissions have continued to decline since this time. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
As stated above, the project would not generate additional traffic trips when compared to existing conditions or create additional operational emissions at completion of each maintenance activity. Thus, no CO hotspots would be generated at intersections within or near any of the flood control facility/detention basin locations. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Typical land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, cannabis farms, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass production. The project is not anticipated to include any uses identified typically associated with odor complaints.
Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust.
However, construction-related odors would be short -term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13, S ections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would reduce the detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. Any project odor impacts to adjacent land uses and n earby sensitive receptors would be short- term and not substantial as these odors would quickly dissipate due to the prevailing meteorology, the volatility of the emissions, and distance to nearby sensitive receptors . No other types of emissions beyond those analyzed above would be generated by the proposed flood control facility maintenance activities. As such, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed by July 18, 2023.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-9 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.3-10 Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-1 Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The information presented in this analysis is based on the following technical studies; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports:
• Michael Baker International, City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino , California, Habitat Assessment (Habitat Assessment), dated December 2020; and
• Michael Baker International, City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, California, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters (Jurisdictional Delineation), dated December 2020.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A Habitat Assessment was prepared for the project to survey existing biological conditions on and surrounding the project site . As part of the habitat assessment, the
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-2 Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) , and Calflora database were queried for reported locations of listed and special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status vegetation communities in the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Adelanto, Apple Valley North, Apple Valley South, Baldy Mesa, Helendale, Hesperia, Phelan, Shadow Mountains SE, Shadow Mountains, Turtle Valley, Victorville NW, and Victorville, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of plants in the project vicinity. Species conservation statuses were verified through the Special Animals List and Special Vascular Plants, Byrophytes, and Lichens List .
According to the Habitat Assessment, the survey area, de fined as the project site plus a 100-foot buffer, generally consists of natural vegetation and four land cover types: sandy wash, disturbed, rip rap, and developed.
Special-Status Plant Species
The record search and literature review returned a total of 22 special -status plant species that have been reported in the USGS Adelanto, Apple Valley North, Apple Valley South, Baldy Mesa, Helendale, Hesperia, Phelan, Shadow Mountains SE, Shadow Mountains, Turtle Valley, Victorville NW, and Victorville 7.5-minute quadrangles. No special- status plant species were observed during the field surveys.
Based on the specific results of the record search and literature review, a review of existing site conditions during the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions , it was determined that the survey area has a moderate potential to support sagebrush loeflingia ( Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum) and Beaver Dam breadroot ( Pediomelum castoreum) and a low potential to support pinyon rockcress (Boechera dispar ), white pygmy -poppy ( Canbya candida ), Mojave spineflower ( Chorizanthe spinosa ), desert cymopterus ( Cymopterus deserticola ), Mojave monkeyflowe r (Diplacus mohavensis ), Torrey’s box -thorn ( Lycium torreyi), solitary blazing star ( Mentzelia eremophila), crowned muilla (Muilla coronata), short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada), Latimer’s woodland-gilia (Saltugilia latimerid), and Mojave fish-hook cactus (Sclerocactus polyancistrus). All remaining special -status plant species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS databases are not expected to occur within the project site or any individual survey areas.
To ensure proper avoidance of special-status plant species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a qualified botanist to conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species prior to the start o f maintenance activities and during the appropriate blooming periods. If individual or populations of special-status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, measures to avoid and minimize impacts would be required in accordance with 2018 CDFW and/or 2001 CNPS guidelines. Although not expected, if State- and/or federally-listed plant species are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS would be required and Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) from the CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to the commencement of project activities.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
The record search and literature review returned a total of 49 special-status wildlife species that have been reported in the USGS Adelanto, Apple Valley North, Apple Valley South, Baldy Mesa, Helendale, Hesperia, Phelan, Shadow Mountains SE, Shadow Mountains, Turtle Valley, Victorville NW, and Victorville 7.5-minute quadrangles. The only special-status wildlife species that was observed within the survey area during the field survey was yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). However, based on the Habitat Assessment, nesting habitat for this species is not present within any of the survey areas and any birds found are expected to be transients.
Based on the specific results of the record search and literature review, a review of existing site conditions during the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requi rements, occurrence records, and known distributions , it was determined that the project site has a high potential of supporting Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii),
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-3 Biological Resources
and loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus). In addition, the project site has a low potential to support tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor), pallid bat ( Antrozous pallidus), golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii ), Swainson’s hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ), olive -sided flycatcher ( Contopus cooperi ), merlin ( Falco columbarius), prairie falcon ( Falco mexicanus), American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus), and Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis). All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB and IPaC are not expected to occur within the project site.
Currently, no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat has been mapped within the survey areas. Therefore, no impacts to Critical Habitat are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Designated Critical Habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; ST and FT) and desert tortoise are located in the vicinity of the project .
Several survey areas occur in close proximity to southwestern willow flycatcher Critical Habitat on the Mojave River.
However, none of the survey areas contain suitable nesting habitat for this species, and most of the survey areas do not contain any riparian habitat at all, including the survey areas that are closest to the Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat for desert tortoise is discussed below.
Due to the moderate or high potential of the project site supporting Yellow warbler, Cooper’s hawk, BUOW, California horned lark, desert tortoise, and loggerhead shrike and the level of regionally significant and/or State or federal listed desert kit fox, Crotch bumble bee, and Mohave ground squirrel, these special-status wildlife species are described in further detail below.
Yellow Warbler
Yellow warbler is a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC). It is a summer migrant to California. Its nesting habitat is typically characterized by wet, deciduous thickets (especially those dominated by willows), eucalyptus groves, and disturbed and early successional habitats. Yellow warblers typically begin arriving in the region in mid -April, moving out of the lowlands in large numbers to breed from June to August before dispersing into lowlands again and ultimately leaving southern California in early October. This species was observed in survey area and may also occur as a migrant or dispersing bird in other survey areas where riparian habitat is present, but is unlikely to nest in any of the survey areas due to insufficient nesting habitat.
Cooper’s Hawk
Cooper’s hawk is a California Watch List (WL) species that is adapted to urban environments and commonly occurs in the larger project site. The species typically forages along broken woodlands and habitat edges and usually nests in deciduous trees in dense woodland and riparian areas, usually near streams. The breeding season for Cooper’s hawk generally extends from late March through mid- to late July, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. This species typically nests later than other common raptor species such as red-tailed hawk. This species was not observed during any of the field surveys conducted for this project, but is generally widespread and has a high potential to occur in any of the individual survey areas. It may nest in areas with large, dense- canopied trees.
Burrowing Owl
The BUOW is currently designated as a CDFW SSC. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. BUOWs use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground. BUOWs are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (e.g., California ground squirrels, coyotes, American badger [ Taxidea taxus]) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting. The presence or absence of mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of BUOWs. Where mammal burrows are scarce, BUOWs have been found occupying man -made cavities,
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-4 Biological Resources
such as buried and non-functioning drainpipes, stand-pipes, and dry culverts. BUOWs may also burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open vegetation allowing clear line- of-sight of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for predators. This species was not observed during the field surveys, but suitable habitat is present in many of the survey areas and there is a record of three bird sightings dated 2018 in the SDMA-NW-00025 survey area. The survey area SDMA-NW-00020 has four CNDDB records within one mile, with a total of 16 birds and active breeding reported between 2005 and 2007 at the four sites, and SDMA -SE-00020 through SDMA -SE-00029 are all located in and with in close proximity to a cluster of CNDDB owl records also from between 2005 and 2007. As such, this species has a high potential to occur throughout many of the individual survey areas.
California Horned Lark
California horned lark is a California WL species that typically forages in groups in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, disturbed fields, or similar habitat types. It typically nests on the open ground, often next to grass clumps or other objects. Areas that are suitable for breeding earlier in the spring may become unsuitable later as vegetation grows higher and obscures the openness of the territory. The breeding season for California horned lark generally extends from mid-March through late August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions.
There is suitable habitat for this species in many of the survey areas and it has a high potential to occur anywhere there is open ground or semi-open ground with moderate shrub cover.
Desert Tortoise
The Mojave population of the desert tortoise inhabits areas north and west of the Colorado River in the Mojave Desert of California, Nevada, Arizona, and southwestern Utah, and in the Sonoran Desert in California. Throughout the majority of the Mojave Desert, desert tortoises occur most commonly on gentle sloping soils characterized by an even mix of sand and gravel and sparsely vegetated low -growing vegetation where there is abundant inter -shrub space.
Typical habitat for the Mojave Desert tortoise has been characterized as creosote bush scrub below 5,500 feet in elevation. Wildflowers, grasses, and in some cases, cacti make up the bulk of their diet. Some of the more common forbs consumed by desert tortoise include desert dandelion ( Malacothrix glabrata), primrose ( Camissonia spp. and Oenothera spp.) desert plantain ( Plantago ovata), milkvetches ( Astragalus spp.), gilia ( Gilia spp.), desert marigold (Baileya multiradiata), Mojave lupine ( Lupinus odoratus), phacelia ( Phacelia spp.), desert wishbone -bush (Mirabilis laevis), forget -me-nots ( Cryptantha spp.), goldfields ( Lasthenia californica ), California coreopsis ( Leptosyne californica), white-margin sandmat (Euphorbia albomarginata), and the introduced red stemmed filaree. The desert tortoise spends 95 percent of its life underground and will opportunistically utilize burrows of various lengths, deep caves, rock and caliche crevices, or overhangs for cover. Therefore, a moderately friable soil is required to allow for burrow construction and ensure that burrows do not collapse. This species was not observed during the field surveys and suitable burrows were not observed during the vegetation mapping that was conducted at each survey area, although the field surveys were by no means comprehensive for tortoise presence. There are multiple CNDDB records in and around the project site, with the most notable records being a roadkill record from 2018 located approximately 500 feet from survey areas SDMA-NW-00004 and SDMA-NW-00005 and a record of multiple tortoises between 1990 and 2007 at a spot within one mile of survey areas SDMA -NW-00020, SDMA-NW-00032 through SDMA-NW-00038, and SDMA-NW-00040. As such, this species has a high potential to occur in many of the survey areas, and specifically in the areas identified above or anywhere bordering open desert areas. Critical Habitat for desert tortoise is located approximately 8.25 miles to the north of the nearest survey area.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident of the Mojave Desert and is designated by the CDFW as a SSC. This species typically occurs in open and semi -open habitats with scattered shrubs, bare ground, and low or sparse herbaceous cover but may also occur along the edges of denser habitats. The loggerhead shrike inhabits a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, agricultural fields, pastures, desert washes, Joshua tree woodland, and
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-5 Biological Resources
creosote bush scrub. These areas provide suitable hunting habitat and often contain an assortment of perches including trees, fences, posts, and utility lines required for spo tting prey. This species typically breeds from March to May and builds its nest 2.5 to 4 feet above ground in thorny shrubs and trees that provide concealment and protection from predators. This species was not observed during the field surveys, but suitable habitat is present throughout the survey areas and it is known to occur year -round in the desert region. It has a high potential to occur in many of the survey areas.
Crotch Bumble Bee
The Crotch bumble bee is designated by the CDFW as a candidate for listing under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as Endangered. However, although Crotch bumble bee is not yet listed, under the CESA candidate species are afforded the same protections as those that are already listed. This species occurs primarily in California, as well as in Mexico and along the Nevada border, although both historically and currently it appears to be rarer in the southeast portion of California along the desert slope. This species generally inhabits open grassland and scrub and typically nests underground. It most frequently utilizes plants in the families Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae for foraging. This species is active from late February to late October (queens) and late March through September (worker bees and males). This species was not observed during the field surveys, and although there are suitable foraging plants in many of the survey areas, this species has not been recorded anywhere in the project vicinity in well over 50 years. It has a low potential to occur within any of the survey areas.
Mohave Ground Squirrel
The Mohave ground squirrel is a State threatened species that is restricted to a small geographic area in the western Mojave Desert of California. The Mohave ground squirrel occupies all major desert scrub habitats in the western Mojave Desert and generally inhabits flat to moderate terrain, avoiding steep slopes and rocky terrain. They prefer gravelly soils within habitats such as the following:
• Creosote bush scrub – white bursage scrub, dominated by creosote bush and white bursage; • Allscale scrub, fourwing saltbush scrub, and shadscale scrub, dominated by various species of saltbush (Atriplex spp.);
• Greasewood scrub, with very sparse vegetation generally located on valley bottoms and dry lake beds; • Joshua tree woodland, which includes Joshua trees widely scattered over a variety of shrub species.
There is suitable habitat to support this species in many parts of the project site, particularly in survey areas that are away from existing development. However, a relatively recent comprehensive trapping effort between 2008 and 2012 found only one Mohave ground squirrel in the entire Victorville area, a juvenile squirrel captured in Adelanto in 2011, and there are only five records in the general project vicinity from within the last 20 years in the CNDDB, including the 2011 Leitner record. The closest recent occurrence is approximately four miles away. It is likely that this species has been essentially extirpated from the Victorville area by development, although it may still be extant in small numbers away from the City and into open ground away from development. As a result, it was determined that Mohave ground squirrel has a low potential to occur in any of the survey areas.
Desert Kit Fox
The desert kit fox is a protected fur-bearing mammal under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 460, which states this species may not be taken at any time. Although it is not a listed species under the CESA or the Federal Endangered Spe cies Act ( FESA), the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to list the desert kit fox as threatened under CESA in 2013. This petition was ultimately rejected by the California Fish and Game Commission and this species remains un-listed at this time. The desert kit fox is an uncommon, rare inhabitant of the Mojave and Colorado deserts in California. In California, the desert kit fox occurs from Inyo County to the Mexican border. Its range extends into southern Nevada, western Arizona, and the southwest tip of Utah. Habitat preferences include flat,
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-6 Biological Resources
arid desert landscapes with the fewest roads dominated by creosote bush and white bursage desert scrub or mixed desert salt scrub that is dominated by abundant rodent populations. The desert kit fox is a nocturnal species, with daytime activity being confined to the vicinity of the den. Kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.) are the primary prey item for kit foxes, although rabbits and hares, rodents, birds, reptiles, insects, and carrion are also consumed.
No desert kit fox or sign (i.e., denning sites, burrow complexes, scat) were observed within or adjacent to the survey areas during the 2020 field surveys. The project site contains suitable habitat for this species, including creosote bush scrub and rubber rabbitbrush scrub. However, due to widespread habitat loss and fragmentation in this area, the individual survey areas are in many cases isolated from direct connectivity to natural habitat outside of small blocks of open space between existing development. In addition, the general Victorville area appears to be generally considered as “unsuitable” for this species, presumably due to the extensive development between Hesperia, Victorville, and Adelanto, although areas outside of the project vicinity are labeled on the map as mostly “fair,” with pockets of “marginal” and “good” habitat. As a result, desert kit fox has a low potential to occur within any of the survey areas.
Yet, as a protected fur -bearing mammal, the desert kit fox would be included in clear ance surveys under Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to ensure the species is not present on site.
Conclusion
No special-status plant species were observed within the survey areas. However, the project site has a low to moderate potential to support special -status plant species as discussed above. To reduce potential impacts to special -status plant species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require focused rare plant survey s be conducted prior to the start of maintenance activities, and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the project site, to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to special-status plant species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Yellow warbler was the only special -status wildlife species observed during the survey. However, nesting habitat fo r this species is not present within any of the survey areas. Construction activities associated with project implementation could result in potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds if construction activities occur during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO- 2 has been provided to reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. Although BUOW, burrows, or signs were not observed during the field surveys, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be required to reduce potential impacts to BUOW. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 would require pre-construction surveys to ensure that BUOW remain absent from the project site and impacts to BUOW are avoided.
The project site has a high potential of supporting desert tortoise and a low potential of supporting Crotch bumble bee and Mohave ground squirrel. Based on the Habitat Assessment, focused surveys for Crotch bumble bee and Mohave ground squirrel are not recommended at this time. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to desert tortoise by requiring surveying for desert tortoise and its signs during the nesting bird clearance surveys (Mitigation Measure BIO-2). If construction occurs outside of the bird nesting season, eliminating the need to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2, desert tortoise surveys would still be required as part of Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-4, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 Prior to maintenance activities occurring, and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the project site, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat for sagebrush loeflingia, Beaver Dam breadroot, pinyon rockcress, desert cymopterus, Mojave monkeyflower, short-joint beavertail, Latimer’s woodland-gilia, and
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-7 Biological Resources
Booth’s evening-primrose to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall also survey for occurrences of special -status vegetation communities with the potential to occur within the project site. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, areas proposed for disturbance. The botanical field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants will both be evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and, in a manner, which maximizes the likelihood of locating special-status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report.
If individual or populations of special -status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, the plants shall be avoided with an appropriate buffer (i.e., fencing or flagging). The surveys and reporting shall follow the 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. For any portion(s) of the project site where focused rare plant surveys are conducted in accordance with applicable agency protocol, the survey results shall be valid until the beginning of the blooming period the following year (i.e., rare plant surveys do not need to be reconducted for recurring maintenance activities at the same location, provided the activities occur prior to the following blooming period).
Although not expe cted, if State - and/or federally-listed plant species and/or special-status vegetation communities are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the CDFW and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) would be required and an Incidental Take Pe rmit(s) from the CDFW and/or USFWS shall be obtained prior to the commencement of maintenance activities. If complete avoidance of a special-status vegetation community is not feasible, the City of Victorville shall mitigate for the loss of the vegetation community through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW -approved bank and/or land acquisition at a ratio deemed appropriate through consultation with CDFW.
If during the focused rare plant survey effort suitable plants providing habitat for Crotch bumble bee are detected (e.g., genera Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Cordylanthus, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, Eriogonum Hypericum, Lantana, Lupinus, Salvia, Asclepias, Cirsium, Monardella, Keckiella, Acmispon, Euthamia, Ehrendorferia, Vicia, and/or Trichostema), a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for Crotch bumble bee, generally following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol for the Rusty patched bumble bee. If the Crotch bumblebee is detected during the preconstruction survey, project activities shall not occur in occupied habitat areas and the CDFW shall be consulted to minimize impacts in this regard.
BIO-2 If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1 st through
July 31st for raptors and February 1 st through August 31st for other avian species), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey for avian species in every survey area to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the area proposed project site. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), a nesting bird survey should be conducted within each survey area no earlier than seven days prior to the commencement of maintenance activities in that area. If work does not occur within seven days following the nesting bird survey, an additional survey will be required.
In the event that active nests are discovered, the extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the nest should be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided, and no maintenance activities within the buffer allowed, until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest).
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-8 Biological Resources
In addition, a preconstruction survey for suitable bat roosting habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of work. If suitable roosting habitat is detected, the CDFW shall be consulted to determine the appropriate steps to determine the presence or absence of daytime, nighttime, wintering and maternity roosting bats. For sites determined to have suitable bat roosting habitat, work shall be conducted outside of the maternity roosting season (March 1 through July 31) to the extent practicable. If project activities are determined to affect bat roosts, appropriate measures (e.g., bat roost, exclusion, replacement roost sites) shall be implemented as appropriate in consultation with CDFW.
BIO-3 Pre-construction burrowing owl (BUOW) clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that BUOWs remain absent from the project site and impacts to BUOWs do not occur. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports . In accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation , two pre -construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in survey areas containing potential to support BUOWs, with the first survey occurring 14 -30 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring and the second survey occurring 24 hours prior to disturbance. If work does not begin within these survey windows, an additional survey will be required. Once surveys are completed, the qualified biologist shall prepare a final report documenting surveys and findings. If no BUO Ws or occupied burrows are detected, project activities may begin.
If burrowing owl, active burrowing owl burrows, or sign thereof are found the qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a plan for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to commencing project activities. The plan shall include mitigation for permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat. Mitigation for impacts may include, but would not be limited to, mitigation lands that may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. Mitigation, and the appropriate ratio, shall be developed in consultation between the City and CDFW.
BIO-4 Desert tortoise and desert kit fox and their signs shall be searched for within suitable habitat for these species during the nesting bird clearance surveys (Measure BIO-2) up to seven days prior to maintenance work occurring. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B , Biological Resources Reports . Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist(s) who has previously conducted desert tortoise and desert kit fox surveys in suitable habitat and/or who has specifically attended the annual “Introduction to Desert Tortoises” workshop hosted by the Desert Tortoise Council in Ridgecrest. Should maintenance work be scheduled outside of the nesting season, thereby eliminating the need for implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the qualified biologist(s) shall still survey the final impact boundaries and a 100 -foot buffer at each survey area with suitable habitat for desert tortoise and desert kit fox. For any portion(s) of the project site where desert tortoise and desert kit fox surveys are conducted in accordance with applicable agency protocol, the survey results shall be valid for one year from the date of the survey (i.e., desert tortoise surveys do not need to be reconducted for recurring maintenance activities at the same location, provided the activities occur within one year of the survey). Should desert tortoise and/or desert kit fox, their signs, or their burrows be found in these areas or any other survey areas, the City of Victorville shall discuss the appropriate avoidance measures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to incorporate during maintenance operations or, if avoidance is not feasible, appropriate consultation requirements under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-9 Biological Resources
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Habitat Assessment, the record search and literature review did not identify any special-status vegetation communities as having been reported within the USGS Adelanto, Apple Valley North, Apple Valley South, Baldy Mesa, Helendale, Hesperia, Phelan, Shadow Mountains SE, Shadow Mountains, Turtle Valley, Victorville NW, and Victorville 7.5-minute quadrangles by the CNDDB. Of the communities that were mapped during the field surveys, Nevada joint fir – Anderson’s boxthorn – spiny hop sage scrub, winter fat scrubland, and arroyo willow thickets are designated as sensitive communities by CDFW’s California Natural Community List . Two additional “disturbed” vegetation communities mapped during the field surveys include disturbed Nevada joint fir – Anderson’s boxthorn – spiny hop sage scrub and disturbed cottonwood forest and woodland. Based on the Habitat Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation prepared for the project, riparian habitat occurs on -site in association with multiple flood control facilities ; however, prior to commencement of construction activities, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from the CDFW, which would minimize impacts to on-site riparian vegetation (refer to Response 4.4(c), below, for additional information regarding regulatory permits required for the project). Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require focused rare plant survey be conducted prior to the start of maintenance activities, and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the project site, and for special -status vegetation communities with the potential to occur within the project site, to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species and/or special-status vegetation communities. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are three agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Division regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambeds and associated vegetation communities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code ( CFGC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates discharges to surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Based on the Jurisdictional Delineation, multiple ephemeral drainage features, primarily desert dry wash, occur throughout the project site. The identified ephemeral drainage features are characterized by the variability of flow typical of the arid to semi-arid desert region. These drainages receive surface flows resulting from precipitation and surface water runoff from adjacent land, surrounding roadways, and urbanized developments. The mapped drainage features exhibited clear evidence of hydrology and an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) was observed. Although ephemeral drainage features do not meet the definition of a WoUS pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, these drainage features qualify as a water of the State.
Within the boundaries of the project site, Oro Grande Wash is considered an intermittent watercourse and flows northwest toward its confluence with the Mojave River. The Oro Grande Wash qualifies as a jurisdictional WoUS .
Eight earthen detention basins are located throughout the project site.
To assess for the presence of hydric soils within the project site, eight soil pits were preformed due to the presence of predominant hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology. Three of the eight soil pits met all three (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) of the required wetland parameters and thus qualifies as a wetland; however, these sites do not
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-10 Biological Resources
qualify as an “Adjacent Wetland” as defined by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as they are associated with ephemeral drainage features and do not possess a direct hydrologic surface connection to a WoUS nor do they physically touch or separated by a natural berm or bank or artificial structure from a WoUS. Therefore, the Jurisdictional Delineation assumes that no jurisdictional wetland WoUS are located within the boundaries of the project site. The State wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the three-parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the Corps and outlined in the 2010 Regional supplement to the Corps Manual. However, one exception is an area can lack hydroph itic vegetation and still satisfy the requirements for a wetland water of the State provided both hydric soil and wetland hyd rology parameters are met. As such, the Jurisdictional Delineation found that wetland waters of the State are located within the boundaries of the project site.
The on-site drainage features exhibited a clear bed and bank and qualify as CDFW jurisdictional lake or streambed. In addition, riparian vegetation was identified in association with multiple drainage features.
Table 4.4-1, Summary of State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Site, below provides a breakdown of total acreage per geographic quadrant (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest) of identified jurisdictional features within the project site as they relate to each regulatory agency at the time the delineation was performed.
Table 4.4-1
Summary of State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Site
City
Quadrant Linear Feet
Corps/Regional Board
Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Regional Board
Waters of the State (acres)
CDFW (Lake or
Streambed/Riparian
Vegetation) (acres) Wetland Non-Wetland Wetland Non-Wetland Northwest 16,785 0.00 0.00 0.97 13.22 21.30
Northeast 4,334 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.28 3.00
Southwest 13,787 0.00 5.71 0.05 12.11 25.57
Southeast 20,100 0.00 9.34 0.01 19.30 30.28
TOTAL 55,006 0.00 15.61 1.03 45.91 80.16
As shown on Table 4.4-1, the project would permanently impact approximately 15.61 acres of Corps jurisdiction (non- wetland waters of the U.S. [WoUS]), 46.94 acres of Regional Board jurisdiction (45.91 acres non-wetland waters of the State and 1.03 acre wetland waters of the State), and 80.16 acres of CDFW jurisdiction (jurisdictional streambed/associated riparian vegetation). However, it is up to the regulatory agencies to determine the limits of their jurisdiction. Based on the analysis conducted for the project site and proposed improvements, it is assumed that the City could obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (Nationwide Permit) from the Corps, a Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, and a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the RWQCB. Upon obtaining the required permits, as required under existing Federal and State law, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife corridors and linkages are key features for wildlife movement between habitat patches . Wildlife corridors are gen erally defined as those areas that provide opportunities for individuals or local populations to conduct seasonal migrations, permanent dispersals, or daily commutes, while linkages generally refer to broader areas that provide movement opportunities for m ultiple
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-11 Biological Resources
keystone/focal species or allow for propagation of ecological processes (e.g., for movement of pollinators), often between areas of conserved land.
Wildlife movement can occur throughout most of the survey areas because most of them are waterways. Areas closer to the Mojave River may even fall into a designated Modeled Habitat Linkage under the San Bernardino County Countywide Plan. However, impacts to wildlife movement are expected to be net beneficial as a result of the project.
Although the maintenance operations may temporarily impede wildlife movement at specific survey areas, they would generally be improving conditions within these areas, ultimately making it easier for wildlife to move through them. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.
As stated in Response 4.4(a) , the project site contains suitable habitat to support a variety of nesting bird species .
Potentially occurring common native birds are not protected by the FESA or CESA; however, many native species are protected under the MBTA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513, which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests , or eggs (in particular, raptor species). Construction activities associated with the project could potentially impact nesting birds within the project’s development footprint and immediate vicinity, which could result in a potentially significant impact . Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2 would req uire pre -construction nesting bird clearance surveys if construction cannot occur outside of the general avian nesting season (January 1st through August 31st). In the event that active nests are discovered, a “no -disturbance” buffer would be required under such active nests and no construction would be allowed to occur within the buffer until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active. Project impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-2.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Habitat Assessment prepared for the proposed project, there are no Western Joshua Trees (WJT) within proposed work areas associated with the project, and no impacts to WJT would occur as part of the project. However, the WJT is a candidate threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under CESA, species classified as CESA candidate species are afforded the same protection as CESA-listed species. WJT removal, relocation, replanting, trimming or pruning, or any similar activity may result in take of WJT. Take of any CESA -listed species is prohibited except as authorized by state law. If project activities are expected to result in a take of the WJT, acquisition of a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under Section 2081 of CESA, or any other appropriate take authorization under CESA or under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA) of Fish and Game Code, would be required.
Further, Chapter 13.33, Preservation and Removal of Joshua Trees , of the Municipal Code protects WJT, making it illegal for any person to cut, damage, destroy, dig up, or harvest any living WJT without the prior written consent of the Director of Parks and Recreation or his designee. If the flood control maintenance activities would require removal or pruning of any on-site WJT, written consent from the Director of Parks and Recreation would be required. Thus, in the unlikely event impacts to WJT occur, procurement of a CESA ITP and compliance with Chapter 13.33 of the Municipal Code would ensure the project does not conflict with the State’s or the City’s tree preservation policies , and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.4-12 Biological Resources
No Impact . T he project site is no t located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any conservation plans and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.5-1 Cultural Resources
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
The information presented in this analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Identification Study and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Victorville Ephemeral Washes Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International (dated March 2021); refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Assessment.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
No Impact. The project involves 127 discontinuous locations in the City, with a 50-foot or smaller buffer for an Area of Potential Effect (APE) prepared for each location. The vertical APE for the project, defined by the Cultural Resources Assessment as the maximum depth of project activities, is measured at approximately 5 feet. The Cultural Resources Assessment included multiple field surveys and a record search of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC). The CHRIS record search was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0. 25-mile radius of the APE for each of the project’s flood control facilities. Sources of the record search include the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), National Historic Landmarks (NHL), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). A search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was also requested through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The records search included a review of available historic-era maps and aerial photographs. Additionally, field surveys for each APE were conducted between the dates of May 27 through May 29, 2020.
The results of the record search indicated that 60 studies have been completed previously within the project site, and 147 additional cultural resource investigations have been completed previously within search radii. The results of these studies indicate that three historical resources have been previously recorded within multiple APEs. The three historical resources include the following:
Tejon Road-Palmdale Cutoff (P-36-004203/CA-SBR-4203H). The resource is a 19 -mile historic road that begins at the Salt Lake-Santa Fe Trail and runs southwesterly to the Mormon Trail. It continues southwest to intersect with Tejon Road. The Tejon Road–Palmdale Cutoff was used as early as 1806, as well as during the1850s railroad surveys, and to deliver camels to Fort Tejon in 1857. This resource has not been previously evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. This resource runs through APE SW-00016-16A (southwest quadrant of the project); however, the road was not observable during the field survey and was likely part of the wash within the APE.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.5-2 Cultural Resources
Oro Grande Wash Road (P -36-004269/CA-SBR-4269H). The resource is a 6- mile-long road that begins at the Toll Road-Lanes Crossing Road, continues northeasterly on the bluff above the Oro Grande Wash, and traverses through the Oro Grande Wash until reaching the vicinity of Victorville. This resource has not been previously evaluated for inclusion in the N NRHP or CRHR. This resource runs through multiple APEs within the southwestern and southeastern quadrants of the project (APEs SW-00013, and SE -00001, -00001-1A, -00004, and -00005). Since the roadway occurred within the Oro Grande Wash and there are no built environment features associated with the natural watershed, the road was not visible within the APEs during the field survey.
Stoddard Wells Road (P-36-009360/CA-SBR-9360H). The resource is a historic wagon road that was one of the first alternative routes across the Mojave Desert to bypass the Mojave Road, and it served as the main wagon route from Victorville to Daggett during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. Stoddard Wells Road is understood to have been constructed in 1867 and then extended between 1896 and 1916. The segment of the roadway within the APE has been previously surveyed and evaluated on two occasions:
1. In 1998, the roadway was noted as originally a dirt wagon road that had been altered by realignment and paving as a major roadway through the area. It was evaluated as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under any criteria due to lack of integrity.
2. In 2006, the segment within the APE was similarly recommended ineligible for inclusion in the CRHR under any criteria due to lack of integrity.
This resource runs through multiple APEs, within the northeastern quadrants of the project (APEs NE-00001, -00002, -00003, -00004, -00005, -00006, -00007, -00008, -00009, -00010, -00011, -00012, -00013, -00014, -00015, -00018, and -00031). No features of the road were identified during the field survey and a DPR (a Historical Resources Inventory Form) update was not completed because the resource was previously identified as destroyed by the construction of the modern paved roadway along the same alignment.
As stated, the Tejon Road-Palmdale Cutoff and Oro Grande Wash Road were not previously evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR and were not observed during the field survey, and Stoddard Wells Road was not recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR due to lack of integrity of the resource. Therefore, based on the Cultural Resources Assessment, no historic properties are known to occur in the APEs and a finding of no historic properties affected has been determined to be appropriate for this undertaking. Thus, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the Cultural Resources Assessment, one archaeological resource was found within the literature and records search and was revisited during the field survey for the project:
(P-36-007043/CA-SBR-007043). This resource is a prehistoric lithic scatter and bedrock milling feature that was once located approximately within APE NW -00034 (northwest quadrant of the project site) . However, the resource was identified in 1997 as destroyed by road widening and was not observable in the APE during the field survey conducted for the project.
As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project proposes maintenance activities at multiple flood control locations that includes excavation and/or dredging. Thus, project construction has the potential to adversely impact
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.5-3 Cultural Resources
previously undiscovered archaeological resources along and adjacent to the existing flood control facilities . In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground -disturbing construction activities, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would require all project construction activities within 60 feet halt until an archaeologist examines the find, evaluates the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified 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. In the event the find is determined to be of Native American origin, potentially affected tribes (including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians [SMBMI] Cultural Resources Department) shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR- 1, regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide t ribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) for review and comment, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the recorded ethnography and the historic setting described in the Cultural Assessment, as well as the level of disturbances that occurred within the APE, it is unlikely that disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would occur during ground -disturbing construction activities for the project. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 -7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains of Native American origin are found onsite, the coroner would be called out, and must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. An NAHC representative shall inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.5-4 Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.6-1 Energy
4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines is an advisory document that assists environmental document preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis in Response 4.6(a) relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:
• Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
• Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources. • Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction- related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy relates to Criteria 2 through 6.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Project-Related Sources of Energy Consumption
This analysis focuses on one source of energy that is relevant to the proposed project: fuel for vehicle trips and equipment associated with project construction/maintenance activities . The Countywide fuel consumption was
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.6-2 Energy
estimated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Emissions Factor 20 21 (EMFAC2021) computer program which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in San Bernardino County. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as hauling and construction worker trips.
The proposed project involves maintenance activities in City-owned flood control facilities and detention basins, such as vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in -channel erosion repair. The project would not result in increased vehicle trips to and from the project site and therefore would not result in operational vehicle-related energy consumption. The project’s primary source of energy consumption (i.e., fuel consumption) would occur from the use of construction equipment on -site, hauling trips, and mobile trips to and from the project site by construction workers. The project’s estimated construction energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, Construction Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project’s construction off-road fuel consumption would increase San Bernardino County’s consumption by 0.0131 percent, and the project’s construction on-road fuel consumption would increase San Bernardino County’s consumption by 0.0045 percent. (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 1).
Table 4.6-1
Construction Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1,2
San Bernardino County
Annual Energy
Consumption3
Percentage
Increase Countywide
Fuel Consumption
Construction Off-Road Fuel Consumption4 8,579 gallons 65,275,351 gallons 0.0131% Construction On-Road Fuel Consumption5 51,738 gallons 1,138,647,360 gallons 0.0045% Notes:
1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.
2. The project would not involve new buildings, operational vehicular trips, electricity, or natural gas consumption when compared to existing conditions. As such, the project would not result in annual electricity, natural gas, or operational fuel consumption.
3. The projected Countywide on- road and off -road fuel consumption in 2023 (construction year) are calculated from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2021.
4. Project off-road fuel consumption calculations are based on CalEEMod results. Calculations include fuel consumption from construction equipment on-site.
5. Project on-road (automotive) fuel consumption calculations are based on CalEEMod results. Calculations include fuel consumption from off-site mobile trips to and from the project site by construction workers and for hauling. The project would not include vendor trips.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, for assumptions used in this analysis.
Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during the proposed vegetation removal/thinning; sediment, debris, and trash removal; bank stabilization; and in-channel erosion repairs.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project’s construction off-road fuel consumption would increase San Bernardino County’s consumption by 0.0131 percent, and the project’s construction on-road fuel consumption would increase San Bernardino County’s consumption by 0.0045 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2).
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.6-3 Energy
Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board ( CARB) engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 4).
It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction maintenance sites in the region or State. Therefore, fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would not represent a significant demand on energy res ources (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5).
Thus, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar projects of this nature. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Operational Energy Consumption
As a flood control maintenance project, project operations would not involve new buildings or uses which would introduce new permanent stationary or mobile sources of energy consumption in the City when compared to existing conditions. The project would not result in increased vehicular trips to and from the existing flood control facilities and detention basins over the long term . The project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or any consumption of building energy. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard (CEQA Appendix F – Criterion 2 through Criterion 6).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. The City currently does not have a plan pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. State and local plans related to renewable energy and energy efficiency include Title 24 S tandards and CALGreen Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). Given that the project consists of routine maintenance activities on City-owned flood control facilities, typical building energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential development in the Title 24 Standards and CALGreen Code are not applicable. Additionally, the City’s existing flood control network consisting of channels, storm drainpipes, culverts, outlet/inlet structures, detention and sedimentation basins, and concrete lined ditches do not utilize energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct any State or local plans related to renewable energy or energy efficiency . No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.6-4 Energy
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.7-1 Geology and Soils
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The General Plan states that, although the City is located in an area of high seismic activity, there are no active faults or fault traces that are known or suspected to exist within the City and, as a result, no Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones are located within the project vicinity. As such, t he proposed project would not increase the potential for human loss, injury, or death as a result of fault rupture. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.7-2 Geology and Soils
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact. The southern California region has numerous active seismic faults that can result in potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards . Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for people and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards are caused by the direct interaction of seismic energy with the ground. E xamples include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement . Secondary hazards are consequences of the shaking , such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.
According to the General Plan EIR, although there are no active faults within the C ity, there are active local fault systems that have the potential to cause local hazardous damage, including the San Andreas, Helendale, North Frontal, Landers, and San Jacinto faults. Further, the San Andreas Fault is located approximately 24 miles south of the City’s southern boundary and is most likely to produce a major earthquake.
The proposed project involves maintenance of the City’s existing flood control facilities. Maintenance activities would include vegetation management, sediment and debris removal, and bank stabilization/channel repair. The maintenance activities for the majority of facilities would occur within a single day, with limited facilities requiring up to 36 hours for completion. The project would not include the development of any new structures or land uses that would result in any impacts related to the risk of loss, injury, or death related to seismic ground shaking. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement or ground failure is generally related to strong seismic shaking events where the groundwater table occurs at a relatively shallow depth (generally within 50 feet of the ground surface) or where lands are underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. Liquefaction generally results in the loss of shear strength of a soil, which occurs due to the increase of poor water pressure caused by the rearrangement of soil particles induced by shaking or vibration. During liquefaction, soil strata typically behave similar to a heavy fluid.
There are s everal locations within the project site that are highly susceptible to liquefication and high potential of occurrence; refer to Table S-1, Environmental Risk Assessment Framework of the General Plan. The construction and maintenance of the project would involve earth moving activities for the purposes of restoring baseline design capacities at the flood control facilities. However, these activities would involve excavating six to 12 inches of sediment on an as needed basis and do not include any buildings or land uses that would result in impacts related to the risk of loss, injury, or death related to liquefaction. No impacts would occur in this regard. .
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Landslides?
No Impact. The topography within City of Victorville is generally flat, ranging between approximately 2,600 to 2,875 feet above sea level . However, there are certain areas within the City that vary considerably from gently sloping topography to nearly vertical slopes. According to the General Plan, facilities within the eastern and southern areas of the City consist of terrain that ha s moderate (10 to 15 percent) to steep (1 5 to 20 percent) slopes. Based on the California Department of Conservation Regulatory Map , none of the facilities in the project site are located within an
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.7-3 Geology and Soils
earthquake-induce landslide zone. 1 Further, the extent of maintenance activities would occur to the as -built or established maintenance baseline of the flood control facility and would not increase or expand facility capacity beyond the original design. As such, no impacts in regard to landslides would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and maintenance activities for the project could potentially result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil due to excavation activities required for sediment removal and bank stabilization. This would include excavation and/or dredging, then engineered backfill of soils and sediment removal via excavation involving various construction equipment. As stated in Response 4.10(a), the project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and associated Best Management Pract ices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and siltation during construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Further, at project completion, the City’s flood control system would be restored to its baseline design capacity and would stabilize soils and reduce erosion in the project area, resulting in a beneficial long-term impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.7(a)(3), 4.7(a)(4), and 4.7(d) regarding project impacts related to liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils.
As noted above, maintenance activities would include vegetation management, sediment and debris removal, and bank stabilization/channel repair. The maintenance activities for the majority of facilities would occur within a single day, with limited facilities requiring up to 36 hours for completion. The project would not include the development of any new structures or land uses that would increase hazards related to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. The proposed routine maintenance activities are minimal and would not exacerbate any existing geologic hazards in the project area. Given that the proposed project consists of maintenance activities and would not introduce new structures or land uses, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact . Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement, and distorting structural elements. As discussed previously, the project is composed of sands, silty sands, and sand with silt. For this reason, the Soil Conservation Survey of San Bernardino County indicates that the expansion potential of the soil on-site and within the project vicinity is generally low.2 Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
1 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/, accessed July 18, 2023. 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of San Bernardino County , California, Mojave River Area, February 1986, https://archive.org/details/usda-general-soil-map-of-san-bernardino-county-california-mojave-river-area, accessed July 18, 2023.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.7-4 Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the General Plan, paleontological resources within the project site include nine ancients lakebed deposits estimated to date back to the Pleistocene Epoch (10,000 to 900,000 years ago). These lake beds contain numerous mammalian fossils, including teeth, limb fragments, phalanges and metacarpal from horses, camels and other large animals. The City is considered to be sensitive regarding paleontological resources due to the existence of recovery sites in various locations of the City .
Additionally, according to the General Plan EIR, the project site ranges in lithology between Low Sensitivity to Moderate/High Moderate Sensitivity.
The proposed project activities would involve grading to minimal depths (generally six to 12 inches in depth on an as needed basis) for the sediment removal and maintenance activities . As the project would not involve substantial grading, paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during construction. Nonetheless, in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require all project construction activities to halt until a paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Thus, following implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Victorville City Engineer. With direction from the City Engineer, a paleontologist certified by the County of San Bernardino shall evaluate the find prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find.
If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 418 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO
2e) per year.1 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well- mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO
2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO 2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre -industrial period range. The latest CO2 reading in the atmosphere was recorded at 421.91 ppm in July 2023.2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e)3 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (°C), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
1 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2 019, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, July 28, 2021.
2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Keeling Curve, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory , https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/, accessed July 18, 2023. 3 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
State
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 -38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S -3-05 set forth a series of t arget dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Executive Order N-79-20. Executive Order N-79-20, issued September 23, 2020, directs the State to require all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the State to be zero -emission vehicles by 2035. Executive Order N- 79-20 further states that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in the State will be zero-emission by 2045.
Senate Bill 32. Signed into law on September 2016, Senate Bill (SB) SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030.
CARB Scoping Plan . On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve the California GHG reductions required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB’s Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California would implement to reduce the projected 2020 “Business-as-Usual” (BAU) emissions to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. These strategies are intended to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e) emissions by 174 million metric tons. This reduction of 42 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), or almost ten percent from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, would be required despite the population and economic growth forecasted through 2020.
CARB’s Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as those expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020.
When CARB’s Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual data was available.
The measures described in CARB’s Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.
AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid -term Statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B -30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new Statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO 2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40
percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
On December 15, 2022, CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which identifies the strategies achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan contains the GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by statutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan was developed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 through a substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, while at the same time increasing deployment of ef ficient non-combustion technologies and distribution of clean energy. The plan would also reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and would include mechanical CO 2 capture and sequestration
actions, as well as emissions and sequestration from natural and working lands and nature -based strategies. Under 2022 Scoping Plan, by 2045, California aims to cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, reduce smog - forming air pollution by 71 percent, reduce the demand for liquid petroleum by 94 percent compared to current usage, improve health and welfare, and create millions of new jobs. This plan also builds upon current and previous environmental justice efforts to integrate environmental justice directly into the plan, to ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of this transformational plan. Specifically, this plan:
• Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
• Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. • Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
• Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document.
• Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands (NWL) to the State’s GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality.
• Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture. • Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action. • Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020-2045 RTP/SCS).
The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light -duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies aim to:
• Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
• Promote diverse housing choices;
• Leverage technology innovations;
• Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region.
Furthermore, the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the S tate-mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). Some of these tools include center focused placemaking and focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, high quality transit areas, and green regions.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines. According to the MDAQMD’s CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines , a project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the most appropriate evaluation criteria. MDAQMD would clarify upon request which threshold is most appropriate for a given project; in general, for GHG emissions, the MDAQMD significance emission threshold of 100,000 MT CO2e per year is sufficient. A significant project must incorporate mitigation sufficient to reduce its impact to a level that is not significant.
A project that cannot be mitigated to a level that is not significant must incorporate all feasible mitigation.
Local
City of Victorville General Plan 2030. The City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (General Plan) Resource Element includes policies and implementation measures pertaining to GHG emissions reduction. A pplicable pol icies and implementation measures include:
Policy 6.1.1: Encourage planning and development activities, that reduce the number and length of single occupant automobile trips.
Implementation Measure 6.1.1.2: Require dust abatement actions for all new construction and redevelopment projects.
Victorville Climate Action Plan. The City prepared its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2015 to present GHG inventories, identify the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identify local measures selected by the City to reduce GHG emissions under the City’s jurisdictional control to achieve the City’s identified AB 32 2020 GHG reduction target. The CAP allows developers to demonstrate that their projects are consistent with the CAP by demonstrating compliance with the Victorville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table review process.
The Victorville Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Table review process allows developers to streamline CEQA review and bypass a complete GHG analysis on their own for CEQA processing. Emissions associated with projects that are consistent with the City’s CAP are considered less than significant and their contributions to cumulative emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable. However, the City’s CAP does not align with the Statewide goals beyond 2020 and thus the CAP is not consistent with the criteria within CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 for the post-2020 period. Consequently, the City is currently working with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to update the City’s current CAP to address SB 32 and post-2020 GHG emission reductions. Given that 2020 has passed, the 2015 CAP was not utilized for project consistency.
Victorville Greenhouse Gas Reduction Pla n. To meet the intent of SB 32, the City is in the process of adopting the City of Victorville 2021 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) to implement General Plan policies focused on GHG emissions. The GGRP sets an aggressive goal to reduce GHG emissions by 55 percent below 2008 baseline GHG emission levels. In order to achieve this goal, the GGRP will require 100 percent of new industrial buildings to install on-site renewable electrical generation (i.e. photovoltaic [PV] solar panels). It should be noted that the GGRP has not been formally adopted, and therefore was not utilized for project consistency.
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions and gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).4,5 A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.6
The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions and the City’s CAP would be inconsistent with the State’s post 2020 GHG reduction goals. Lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by State or regional agencies with expertise in the field of global climate change (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in determining the significance of environmental effects. Thus, the project’s GHG emissions are compared to the adopted MDAQMD threshold of 100,000 MT CO 2e per year.
In addition, since the City’s adopted CAP would not be consistent with the State’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals, the GHG plan consistency for this project is based off the project’s consistency with the 20 20-2045 RTP/SCS and 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth -management strategy that targets per -capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 20 20-2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides measures to achieve SB 32 targets.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from maintenance activities, including vegetation management (e.g., vegetation removal, thinning, and trimming), sediment and debris removal, and bank stabilization and channel repair (e.g., minor bank erosion repair, rock or riprap replacement, and in-channel erosion repair). Maintenance activities would occur on an as needed basis. The majority of flood control facilities are generally anticipated to receive maintenance activities annually or after significant storm events.
The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate project -related GHG emissions. The modeling conservatively assumed 50 percent of the flood control facilities would require maintenance in one calendar year. However, in drought conditions, fewer facilities (e.g., 25 percent o r less) would require maintenance as less vegetation, sediment, and debris would flow through the facilities. The facilities modeled in CalEEMod were the largest sites with the greatest amount of required sediment removal. In total, these facilities encompass approximately 55.3 acres and would require approximately 600 cubic yards of vegetation/trash removal and 32,660 cubic yards of sediment removal and hauling. As a worst -case scenario, the activities were assumed to occur for a duration of 10 hours per day for approximately 61 days.
The proposed project would result in emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis . Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities. Table 4.8 -1, Estimated Greenhouse
4 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009. 5 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency , April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed July 18, 2023. 6 14 CCR Section 15064(h)(3).
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Gas Emissions , presents the estimated CO 2, N 2O, and CH 4 emissions. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data.
Table 4.8-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O
Total Metric
Tons of
CO2e2,3 Metric Tons
per Year1
Metric
Tons per
Year 1
Metric Tons
of CO2e1
Metric
Tons per
Year 1
Metric Tons
of CO2e1
Construction Emissions4
Year 1 148.19 0.04 0.97 0.00 0.00 149.16
Total Emissions2 148.19 0.04 0.97 0.00 0.00 149.16
Total Project-Related Emissions2 149.16 MTCO2e per year Notes: carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2e; metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year = MTCO2e per year
1. Project emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 and EMFAC2017, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator , http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed July 18, 2023.
Source: Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data, for detailed model input/output data.
As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed maintenance activities would result in approximately 149.16 MT CO2e per year.
The proposed maintenance activities would not include additional operational area, water, solid waste, or energy uses.
Furthermore, the maintenance activities would not result in an increase of traffic trips compared to existing conditions.
As such , the project would not generate any additional operational GHG emissions when compared to existing conditions. Overall, GHG emissions generated by construction and operation of the project would be minimal and less than the adopted MDAQMD threshold of 100,000 MT CO2e per year. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. While the City adopted a CAP in 2015, the CAP looked at consistency with AB 32 and GHG reduction targets for 2020. The City is in the process of adopting the GGRP to meet the intent of SB 32, however the GGRP has not been formally adopted. Thus, the following analysis is based upon the project’ s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2022 Scoping Plan to examine consistency beyond 2020. The 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth -management strategy that targets per -capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the southern California region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides measures to achieve SB 32 targets.
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The SCAG 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS is intended to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. Table 4.8-2¸ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Project Consistency Analysis , analyzes the project’s consistency with these five 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS strategies. Given that the project is a City- wide routine maintenance program for existing flood control facilities, the RTP/SCS strategies, which are related to land use planning and new development, are not directly
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
relevant to the project. As detailed in Table 4.8-2, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS strategies are not applicable to the project and the project would not conflict with implementation of the strategies.
Table 4.8-2
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Project Consistency Analysis
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational
and other destinations
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance
to reduce commute times and distances
and expand job opportunities near transit
and along center-focused main streets
• Plan for growth near transit investments
and support implementation of first/last mile
strategies
• Promote the redevelopment of
underperforming retail developments and
other outmoded nonresidential uses
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate new
growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation
options that reduce the reliance on and
number of solo car trips (this could include
mixed uses or locating and orienting close
to existing destinations)
• Identify ways to “right size” parking
requirements and promote alternative
parking strategies (e.g. shared parking or
smart parking)
Center Focused Placemaking,
Priority Growth Areas (PGA),
Job Centers, High Quality
Transit Areas (HQTAs), Transit
Priority Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livab le Corridors,
Spheres of Influence (SOIs),
Green Region, Urban
Greening.
Not Applicable . The proposed project
consists of a City -wide routine
maintenance program for 127 City-owned
flood control facilities and detention
basins. Typical maintenance activities
include vegetation removal or thinning,
sediment removal, debris and trash
removal, bank stabilization, and in-
channel erosion repair. At project
completion, the ex isting flood control
facilities and detention basins would
continue to capture and transport storm
flows and surface runoff through
urbanized and undeveloped areas of
Victorville. As such, no new land uses or
development are proposed that would
focus growth near destinations and
mobility options. Therefore, this strategy
is not applicable to the proposed project.
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable
housing and prevent displacement
• Identify funding opportunities fo r new
workforce and affordable housing
development
• Create incentives and reduce regulatory
barriers for building context sensitive
accessory dwelling units to increase
housing supply
• Provide support to local jurisdictions to
streamline and lessen barriers to housing
development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions
PGA, Job Centers, HQTAs,
NMA, TPAs, Livable Corridors,
Green Region, Urban
Greening.
Not Applicable. Refer to response above
regarding project consistency with the
“Focus Growth Near Destinations and
Mobility Options” strategy. The proposed
project does not include residential
development and thus, this strategy is not
applicable.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-2 [cont’d]
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Project Consistency Analysis
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies such
as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared
rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and
scooters by providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated lanes,
charging and parking/drop-off space
• Improve acc ess to services through
technology—such as telework and
telemedicine as well as other incentives
such as a “mobility wallet,” an app- based
system for storing transit and other multi -
modal payments
• Identify ways to incorporate “micro- power
grids” in communities, for example solar
energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage
and power generation
HQTA, TPAs, NMA, Livable
Corridors.
Not Applicable. Refer to response above
regarding project consistency with the
“Focus Growth Near Destinations and
Mobility Options” strategy. Technology
innovations (e.g., low emission
technologies, telework/telemedicine, and
micro-power grids) are not relevant to the
proposed flood control maintenance
activities and thus, this strategy is not
applicable.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to support
local sustainable development
implementation projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
Support Statewide legislation that reduces
barriers to new construction and that
incentivizes development near transit
corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the
establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or value
capture t ools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development projects,
including parks and open space
• Work with local jurisdictions/communities to
identify opportunities and assess barriers to
implement sustainability strategies
• Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and
best practices in the SCAG region
• Continue to support long range planning
efforts by local jurisdictions
• Provide educational opportunities to local
decisions makers and staff on new tools,
best practices and policies related to
implementing the Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Center Focused Placemaki ng,
Priority Growth Areas (PGA),
Job Centers, High Quality
Transit Areas (HQTAs), Transit
Priority Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livable Corridors,
Spheres of Influence (SOIs),
Green Region, Urban
Greening.
Not Applicable. Refer to response above
regarding project consistency with the
“Focus Growth Near Destinations and
Mobility Options” strategy. This strategy
regarding sustainability policies is not
applicable to the proposed flood control
maintenance activities.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-2 [cont’d]
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Project Consistency Analysis
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate
adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as
well as project implementation that
improves community resiliency to climate
change and natural hazards
• Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands
and carbon sequestration
• Integrate local food production into the
regional landscape
• Promote more resource efficient
development focused on conservation,
recycling and reclamation
• Preserve, enhance and restore regional
wildlife connectivity
• Reduce consumption of resource areas,
including agricultural land
• Identify ways to improve access to public
park space
Green Region, Urban
Greening, Greenbelts and
Community Separators.
Not Applicable. Refer to response above
regarding project consistency with the
“Focus Growth Near Destinations and
Mobility Options” strategy. This strategy
regarding promoting a green region is not
applicable to the proposed flood control
maintenance activities.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, September 3, 2020.
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each AB 32 inventory sector. Provided in Table 4.8 -3, 2022 Scoping Plan Project Consistency Analysis , is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-3
2022 Scoping Plan Project Consistency Analysis
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in any new traffic trips beyond existing conditions.
Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
Achieve 100% of LDV sales ZEV by 2035 Not Applicable. As described above, the project would not generate any additional trips beyond existing conditions at completion of the proposed flood control maintenance activities.
Achieve 100% of medium -duty and heavy-duty vehicles sales ZEV by 2040
Port Operations
Achieve 100% of cargo handling equipment zero -emission by 2037
Not Applicable. As described above, the project would not generate any additional trips beyond existing conditions at completion of the proposed flood control maintenance
activities. Achieve 100% of drayage trucks zero-emission by 2035 New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new residential or commercial buildings.
Food Products
Achieve 7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or indirectly by 2030 and 75% by 2045
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in the consumption of food products.
Construction Equipment
Achieve 25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by 2045
Consistent. The City of Victorville has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring electricity -powered
construction equipment. However, if adopted, the p roject would comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of electric construction equipment in the future. As such, the project would be consistent with this action.
Combined Heat and Power
Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in the construction of facilities requiring heat and power.
Agriculture Energy Use
Achieve 25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% by 2045
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in impacts on agriculture energy use.
Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in the creation of new organic waste beyond existing
conditions.
High GWP Potential Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions
Not Applicable. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new buildings.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analyses provided above demonstrates that most of the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2022 Scoping Plan are not applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. As described above, construction activities associated with the routine flood control maintenance program also would not exceed the MDAQMD threshold of 100,000 MTCO2e. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.8-12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project proposes flood control maintenance activities to the City’s existing flood control syste m. As part of the project’s ongoing operations and maintenance, sediment would be cleared on as needed basis to maintain baseline design capacities of the flood control facilities .
These activities, however, would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.9-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is through accidental release of hazardous substances. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. Human exposure of contaminated soil, soil gas, or water can have potential health effects based on a variety of factors, such as the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum - based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials anticipated during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be implemented such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law.
The project could also result in impacts related to unknown hazardous materials that may be disturbed during the short- term construction process. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, best management practices can be implemented to reduce risk to acceptable levels. Additionally, in the unlikely event that unknown hazardous materials are uncovered during future construction activities, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure work in the suspected contaminant’s vicinity is immediately halted until a Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator advises the responsible party of further action to be taken, if required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 includes provisions in the event unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during ground disturbing activities to minimize potential risk of upset. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
The project consists of flood control maintenance activities such as vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair. Project implementation would restore the City’s flood control system to its baseline design capacity and help reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil within the City’s flood control system. Project implementation would not involve any new development or change in land use which would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Long-term impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1 If the construction contractor discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the construction contractor shall:
• Immediately cease work in the suspected contaminant’s vicinity, and remove workers and the public from the area;
• Notify the City of Victorville Fire Department and/or Public Works Department; • Secure the area as directed by the City of Victorville Fire Department and/or Public Works Department; and
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Notify the implementing agency’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.
A Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall be appointed by the City and shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. There are three flood control locations within the project site that are within 0.25-mile of an existing school. Table 4.9-1, Facilities Within 0.25-Mile of Schools identifies each facility by its location identifier and name, the school in which it is in close approximation to, and distance from said school.
Table 4.9-1
Facilities Within 0.25-Mile of Schools
Location Identifier Location Name School Name Address Distance (mile)
SDMA-SE-00020 100 feet north of Silica Drive at
Highgate Avenue Lomitas Elementary 12571 First Avenue
Victorville, CA 92395 0.22
SDMA-SE-00021 North of Silica Drive, 200 feet east
of 5th Avenue
Mojave Vista
Elementary
16100 Burwood Avenue
Victorville, CA 92395 0.13
SDMA-SW-000070 100 feet north of Comet Drive at 250
feet west of Topaz Road Silverado High School 14048 Cobalt Road Victorville, CA 92392 0.12
SDMA-SW-00007-
7A
Pipe Inlet, south of Dos Palmas
Road, 275 feet west of Topaz Road Silverado High School 14048 Cobalt Road Victorville, CA 92392 0.18
Source: Victorville Unified School District, School Locator, https://locator.decisioninsite.com/?StudyID=206282., accessed July 18, 2023.
Maintenance activities of each flood control facility involve vegetation clearing, trash/debris removal and sediment removal of approximately 10 cubic yards (CY). The duration of these activities would be between five to six hours annually at each flood control facility. As discussed in Response 4.09(b), during construction/maintenance activities, the construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of any hazardous substances into the environment. Additionally, as stated in Response 4.6(a), operational maintenance activities would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not impact schools loc ated with 0.25-mile of the site. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board to compile and update a regulatory site listing (per the criteria of the Section).
The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.1 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant Impact. One project facility is located within the boundaries of the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) Specific Plan. Although this activity would occur near an existing airport, the proposed project would involve drainage maintenance activities, and would not result in any new development, structures, or facilities that would have the capacity to create safety hazards associated with SCLA. In addition, as noted in Section 4.13, Noise, it is not anticipated that the project would result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area .
As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Safety Element of the General Plan describes the City’s emergency preparedness plan that outlines specific locations as emergency shelters in the event of a disaster (i.e ., public schools). The proposed project would not impair emergency access in the site vicinity as the project would not require full roadway closures . Maintenance activities associated with the project are not anticipated to block access to emergency shelters or evacuation routes.
The project would not impair the implementation of any aspect of the City’s Emergency Plan, as outlined in the General Plan. As such, project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, nor is the site designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHZ).2 The project involves flood control maintenance activities such as vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair, and would not introduce any new habitable structures or facilities that could expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources , http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed July 18, 2023.
2 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, SW San Bernardino County, November 7, 2007.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site?
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES permit program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). There are nine RWQCBs, which are responsible for development and enforcement of water quality objectives and implementation plans. The project site is located in the jurisdiction of the Lahontan RWQCB.
Impacts related to water quality typically range over three different periods: 1) during the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest; 2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and 3) following completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with urban runoff would increase.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
Short-Term Construction
The proposed project involves flood control maintenance activities to the existing City flood control system .
Construction activities associated with the project have the potential to produce minimal quantities of typical pollutants such as nutrients, heavy metals, toxic chemicals, and waste materials. Impacts to stormwater quality may occur from construction, and increased pollutant loadings could occur immediately off-site.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of a Construction General Permit under the NPDES program. A Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is required to contain a site map that depicts the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP is also required to include best management practices (BMPs) proposed to minimize stormwater runoff and overall water quality.
The project’s construction activity would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit, as discussed above, because it involves vegetation removal, clearing, excavation, and disturbances to the ground, and a construction site with soil disturbance greater than 1.0 acre in total. The project would be required to obtain applicable permits from the Lahontan RWQCB pertaining to waste discharge requirements. More specifically, as part of project’s compliance with NPDES requirements, the City would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the Lahontan RWQCB providing notification of intent to comply with the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP is required to outline the erosion, sediment, and non-stormwater BMPs proposed to minimize the discharge of pollutants at the construction site. These temporary construction BMPs would include measures to prevent sediment from disturbed areas from entering the storm drain system using runoff controls (e.g., minimal vegetation clearing, designated construction entrances, check dams, filter berms, and/or riprap), erosion control s (e.g., mulching, temporary slope drain, dust control, and/or temporary stream crossings), and sediment controls ( e.g., sand bags at inlets , silt fences, sand fences, temporary diversion dikes, and/or brush barriers ). The project would also incorporate good housekeeping construction BMPs prevent sediment and pollutant transport. General construction site waste management would include trash disposal, recycling, proper material handling, and spill prevention and cleanup measures to properly cover materials that may be dispersed by wind, rainfall, or storm water runoff, and to prevent spills and leaks from hazardous materials that are improperly stored. Maintenance and washing of vehicles would be conducted in designated covered paved areas to eliminate improper connections from these areas to the storm drain system. Additional measures in these areas would include maintenance of vehicles and other equipment that may leak hazardous chemicals, covering of fuel drums and other materials that are stored outdoors, and properly handling and disposing of automotive wastes and wash water.
Implementation of the BMPs would ensure runoff and discharges during the project’s construction activities do not violate applicable water quality standards. Additionally, the project would serve as a beneficial impact to water quality as the project would provide sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in -channel erosion repair. Compliance with NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction-related impacts in this regard to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Operations
Within the urbanized areas of Victorville, the flood control system includes a network of constructed channels, storm drainpipes, culverts, outlet/inlet structures, detention and sedimentation basins, as well as concrete lined ditches.
Surface runoff resulting from precipitation events that originates on urbanized (impervious) private property and public roadways is either captured on-site for infiltration purposes or proceeds into the City’s constructed flood control system.
Surface flows that originate within vacant, undeveloped land either infiltrate into the substrate or coalesce into natural earthen channels proceeding downstream into larger ephemeral or intermi ttent streams. The project proposes flood control maintenance activities such as vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair, all of which would restore the City’s flood control system to its baseline design capacity and help reduce soil erosion and loss of topsoil within the City’s flood control system. Therefore, the
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
project would serve as a beneficial impact to water quality and no substantive change to the amount of impervious surface would occur. Long-term operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The project involves flood control maintenance activities within the City’s existing flood control system and would not introduce any new uses that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. At project completion, the existing flood control facilities would restore the City’s flood control system to its baseline design capacity and groundwater recharge and percolation into the earth would continue to occur, similar to existing conditions. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration to existing drainage patterns. As stated in Response 4.10(a), the project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit under the NPDES program, which would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs to minimize erosion and siltation during construction activities.
Further, at project completion, the City’s flood control system would be restored to its baseline design capacity and would stabilize soils and reduce erosion in the project area. As such, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
The project would serve as a beneficial impact to hydrology and water quality on -site. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) S ubstantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact . Refer to Response s 4.10(a) and 4.10 (c)(1). The project would not increase the impervious surface area. The project would result in a beneficial impact by remov ing excess accumulated sediment that may inhibit the established flow line and reduce flood capacity thereby increasing potential for localized flooding.
The project would restore flood control baseline design capacities on- site and reduce the risk of flooding within the project area.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(c)(1). The project does not propose any new uses that could create or contribute runoff water into existing stormwater drainage systems in the project area. The
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality
project proposes flood control maintenance activities to existing flood control facilities within the City, restoring baseline design capacities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a), 4.10 (c)(1), and 4.10(c)(3).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact.
Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area, portions of the project site are located within Zone A, which are areas that are subject to 0.1 percent annual chance of flood hazard, Zone X, Zone D, Zone AE are in areas of the Mojave River and Oro Grande Wash which are areas that are subject to inundation by 1 percent annual chance flood. 1 The project proposes flood control maintenance
activities to existing flood control facilities within the City, restoring baseline design capacities. The project would result in beneficial impacts regarding flood hazards as the project proposes sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair on-site. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. The project site is located approximately 64 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not to be subject to tsunami impacts. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Seiche
A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. The project site is not located near any major bodies of enclosed water. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(b) above, the project would comply with NPDES and RWQCB requirements, and would not have the capacity to conflict with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan for the region. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06071C5150J, 06071C5785H, 06071C5805H, 06071C810H, 06071C5795H, 06071C5815H, 06071C5820J, 06071C6485J, 06071C6480H, 06071C6475H , August 28, 2008, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, accessed July 18, 2023.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project involves maintenance activities at existing flood control facilities within the City’s flood control system. Typical maintenance activities include vegetation removal or thinning, sediment removal, debris and trash removal, bank stabilization, and in-channel erosion repair. The maintenance activities would reduce erosion and flooding risk, protect life and property, and protect essential City infrastructure by restoring the existing flood control facilities to baseline design capacities. No new land uses would be introduced that could have the potential to physically divide an established community. Nearby established residential communities would not be impacted by the proposed maintenance activities. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a c onflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. Multiple land use and zoning designations occur on-site due to the large number or maintenance facilities proposed for the project. Land use designations and zoning on-site include, but are not limited to, Commercial (zoning:
C-1, C-2, and CM); High Density, Medium Density, Low Density, and Very Low Density Residential (zoning: R-1 through R-4, and MDR); Light and Heavy Industrial (zoning: M -1 through M -2, and IPD); Open Space; Office Professional (zoning: C-A); and a variety of Specific Plan designations (zoning: SP). As the project would not change the use on- site, the project would be consistent with the site’s existing land use designation and zoning, and would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.11-2 Land Use and Planning
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.12-1 Mineral Resources
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Department of Conservation’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) identifies a range of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) within California based on geologic and economic factors that identify the potential importance of mineral deposits in a particular area. According to the California Geological Survey, the project site consists of MRZ-2b and MRZ-3a. MRZ-2b identifies areas underlain by mineral deposits where it is indicated that significant inferred resources are present, while MR-3a identifies areas containing mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. MRZ-2b areas within the project site are along the Mojave River, which include alluvium in and along the river.1
According to the California Geological Survey, resources in MRZ-2b areas are estimated to be between 50 to 200 feet below ground surface (bgs). Two of the City’s flood control facilities associated with the project are located less than
0.5 mile from the Mojave River /bank deposits and are within an MRZ-2b area. The proposed maintenance activities may require sediment and debris removal that would involve excavating and disturbing the top six to 12 inche s of sediment. Therefore, based on the California Geological Survey estimated depth to find resources (50 to 200 feet bgs), it is unlikely that the project would disturb mineral resources that would be of value at a maximum excavation depth of 12 inches . No mineral extraction operations currently occur at or near the project site. As such , less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mined and Geology, Mineral Land Classification of Concrete Aggregate Resources in the Barstow-Victorville Area, 1993.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.12-2 Mineral Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-1 Noise
4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A - weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver.
Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctu ate constantly over time.
One such metric, the equivalent sound level (L
eq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions.
Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-2 Noise
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines Appendix D, Noise Element Guidelines, include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. Table 4.1 3-1, Noise and Land Use Compatibility, shows the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
Table 4.13-1
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 - 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 - 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 - 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 - 85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 - 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA NA: Not Applicable
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or dev elopment does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D, Noise Element Guidelines, 2017.
Local
City of Victorville General Plan 2030
The City of Victorville General Plan 2030 (General Plan) Noise Element includes policies and implementation measures pertaining to noise. Applicable policies and implementation measures include:
Policy 2.1.1: Continue to implement acceptable standards for noise for various land uses throughout the City.
Implementation Measure 2.1.1.5: Continue to restrict noise and require mitigation measures for any noise - emitting construction equipment or activity.
In addition, the Noise Element identifies acceptable and unacceptable noise levels for various land uses as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and State of California Guidelines. The City’s land use compatibility standards are identified in Table 4.13-2 , Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards. A cceptable and unacceptable noise levels for each land use category are numerically ranked.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-3 Noise
Table 4.13-2
Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards
Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL dB 55 60 65 70 75 80+ --
Residential - Low Density, Single Family, Duplex, Multifamily, Mobile Home 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 1 1 1 2 3 3 3
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Retail Commercial and Professional 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Agriculture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Legend:
1: Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
2: Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 3: Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 4:Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: City of Victorville, City of Victorville General Plan 2030 , Table N -3, Victorville Land Use Compatibility Standards , approved September 24, 2008.
City of Victorville Municipal Code
Chapter 13.01, Noise Control , of the City of Victorville Municipal Code (Municipal Code) establishes criteria and standards for the regulation of noise levels within the City. As outlined in Chapter 13.01 and as indicated in Table 4.13- 3, Ambient Noise Levels, maximum ambient noise levels are based on zoning.
Table 4.13-3
Ambient Noise Levels
Zone Time Period Sound Level Decibels (dba)1
All Residential Zones 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 65
All Commercial Zones Anytime 70
All Industrial Zones Anytime 75
Notes:
1. If ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit noted, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
Source: City of Victorville, Victorville Municipal Code, Section 13.01.040, Base Ambient Noise Levels.
Municipal Code Section 13.01.050, Noise Levels Prohibited, states that noise levels shall not exceed the ambient noise levels identified in Section 13.01.040 (Table 4.13 -3) by the following dBA levels for the cumulative period of time specified:
1. Less than 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour;
2. Less than 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;
3. Less than 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-4 Noise
4. Less than 20 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; and
5. 20 dB(A) or more for any period of time.
Municipal Code Section 13.01.06, Noise Source Exemptions, identifies the following activities as being exempted from the provisions of Chapter 13.01:
1. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work.
2. The provisions of this regulation shall not preclude the construction, operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and recreation projects, public works projects or essential public works services and facilities, including those utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.
3. Activities conducted on the grounds of any elementary, intermediate or secondary school or college.
4. Outdoor gatherings, public dances and shows, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit as required by this code.
5. Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit as required by this code.
6. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law.
7. Traffic on any roadway or railroad right-of-way.
8. The operation of the Southern California Logistics Airport.
9. Construction activity on private properties that are determined by the D irector of B uilding and S afety to be essential to the completion of a project.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project proposes maintenance activities for flood control facilities scattered across urban and rural areas of the City. Within the urbanized areas of Victorville, the flood control facilities include constructed channels, storm drainpipes, culverts, outlet/inlet structures, detention and sedimentation basins, as well as concrete lined ditches. Within the rural and undeveloped areas of the City, flood control facilities include catchment structures and natural earthen channels.
The detention basins are primarily situated near urbanized areas of the City and are designed to capture and detain storm flows to maintain downstream channel capacity. Typical sensitive receptors in the City include residences, schools, hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. It is difficult to specify noise levels which are acceptable to everyone, what is annoying to one individual may be acceptable to another. However, standards usually address the needs of most of the general population and can be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Construction activities are generally temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. As detailed in Section 2.5, Construction/Phasing, the majority of flood control facilities are generally anticipated to receive maintenance activities annually or after significant storm events. However, a subset of five flood control facilities are identified as requiring maintenance every six months. The majority of flood control maintenance work would be accomplished within eight to 10 hours or generally within one day. Based on the size, location, condition,
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-5 Noise
and maintenance frequency, approximately 12 facilities would require more than one day work and up to 36 hours to complete the required maintenance.
Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment associated with the proposed project are shown in Table
4.13-4, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment).
Table 4.13-4
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Backhoe 40 78
Compactor 20 83
Dozer 40 82
Excavator 40 85
Grader 40 85
Truck 40 88
Tractor 40 84
Note:
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
Proposed maintenance activities would include vegetation management, sediment and debris removal, and bank stabilization and channel repair. Vegetation management activities include the complete removal of vegetation as well as thinning and trimming activitie s primarily accomplished using field crews , hand tools, and herbicide application.
Sediment and debris removal would involve the removal of excess accumulated sediment and/or debris including trash, construction debris (concrete rubble), vehicles tires, shopping carts, and other waste. Excavation may require utilizing a backhoe loader, dump truck, compact track loader (bobcat), dozer, and excavator . Bank stabilization and channel repair activities would be conducted by using a backhoe loader, dump truck, compactor, a compact track loader (bobcat), bulldozer, excavator, as well as field crews and hand tools.
Construction activities would occur adjacent to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. As noted above, the majority of flood control facilities would require one day of maintenance work, with approximately 12 facilities requiring up to 36 hours. Therefore, as a worst -case scenario, construction noise levels could intermittently occur for a few days when construction equipment is operating in close proximity to sensitive receptors. The remainder of the time the construction noise levels would be much less because the equipment would be working in a large area farther away from the sensitive uses. Additionally, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.01.06, construction activities associated with essential public facilities (i.e. proposed project) are exempt from the City’s noise standards. Th us, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
Operation of the proposed project (i.e., completion of the proposed flood control maintenance activities) would not introduce any new noise-generating sources. No new land uses or development are proposed that would generate new noise sources, including mobile and stationary sources, beyond existing conditions. Therefore, no long -term operational noise impacts would result with implementation of the project.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-6 Noise
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact . Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration , depending on the construction equipment used and the type of activity . Construction equipment operation would generate groundborne vibrations which decrease with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes. This evaluation uses the Caltrans architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at older residential structures of 0.3 inch/second PPV. As the nearest structures to project construction are residences, this threshold is considered appropriate. Further, as the nearest sensitive receptors to project construction are residents, the criterion for human annoyance of 0.2 inch/second PPV is utilized.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Table 4. 13-5, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment , identifies typical vibration levels for construction equipment.
Table 4.13-5
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Reference peak particle velocity at
25 feet (inch/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity
at 15 feet (inch/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.191
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.164
Small bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.006
Notes:
1. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level at 25 feet in in/sec D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
To provide a worst -case scenario, it is assumed that construction activities could occur as close as 15 feet from the nearest structure. As illustrated in Table 4. 13-5, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment that would be used during project construction range from 0.006 to 0.191 inch/second PPV at 15 feet from the source of activity. As such, vibration levels during project construction would not exceed Caltrans significance thresholds (i.e.
0.3 inch-per-second PPV for structures and 0.2 inch-per-second PPV for human annoyance).
In addition, according to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), ground- borne noise occurs when vibration radiates through a building interior and creates a low-frequency sound, often described as a rumble. The proposed project does not include train operations or equipment with the potential to generate groundborne vibration. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-7 Noise
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) facility is located approximately two miles northwest of the closest flood control facility proposed for maintenance (SDMA-NW-00004). All other flood control facilities proposed for maintenance are located further than two miles from SCLA. Project implem entation would involve routine maintenance activities such as vegetation removal/thinning; sediment, debris, and trash removal; bank stabilization; and in-channel erosion repair. At completion of the maintenance activities, the flood control facilities would continue to operate similar to existing conditions. No new land uses or development are proposed that would expose future residents or employees to excessive noise levels. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.13-8 Noise
This page left intentionally blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.14-1 Population and Housing
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population unplanned growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct or indirect population growth. The project would include routine maintenance of the City’s drainage infrastructure. As such, the p roject is not anticipated to substantially increase the number of employed workers. Less than significant impacts pertaining to unplanned population growth would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Displace substantial n umbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As no housing is present on-site, the project would not displace residents or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.14-2 Population and Housing
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.15-1 Public Services
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
No Impact. Fire protection and emergency medical services for the City of Victorville are provided by the Victorville Fire Department (VFD). Within the City limits, five fire stations are manned and operated by the VFD. A sixth contracted station is located at the S outhern California Logistics Airport (SCLA). Currently, there are 61 firefighters serving the City. Each Victorville fire station is equipped with at least a medic engine and three firefighters, with the exception of Station 319 which is contracted through Mission Aviation
The proposed flood control improvements would involve routine maintenance, and would not increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services and thus, would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of any new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Additionally, no habitable structures or other land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for fire protection services are proposed. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) Police protection?
No Impact. Police protection for the City is provided by the Victorville Police Department, which is contracted with the San Bernardino County Sheriff. The Police Department is located at 14200 Amargosa Road. Currently, the Police Department has 102 sworn officers and 29 non-sworn positions. The City currently has a ratio of 0.80 sworn officers per 1,000 residents.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.15-2 Public Services
The proposed flood control improvements would not increase the need for additional police protection services or involve construction of any new or phys ically altered police protection facilities. Further, no habitable structures or other land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for police protection services are proposed. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3) Schools?
No Impact. Based on the 2030 General Plan Draft Program EIR, there are 23 public elementary schools, five public junior high/middle schools, three high schools, a community college and a university (extension), eight academy/preparatory schools and 10 private schools in the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in residential population and thus, would not impact existing capacities and resources at the City’s schools and facilities; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Parks?
No Impact. Existing outdoor recreation resources in the City include public parks, public golf courses, public access lakes, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails and linkages between recreation areas and urbanized places. Based on the Victorville General Plan FPEIR, the City maintains 409.9 acres of parkland (including golf courses). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in residential population and thus, would not impact existing parkland or increase the need for new parkland facilities; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
5) Other public facilities?
No Impact. As detailed above in Responses 4.1 5(a)(1) through 4.15(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts related to public services. The project does not involve construction of any new or physically altered public facilities, and no other public facilities are anticipated to be affected by the project. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.16-1 Recreation
4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4) ; the proposed project would restore baseline capacities at flood control facilities throughout the City, and would not result in the implementation of any new uses that would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. The project does not propose new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities and would not increase the demand for, or use of, exist ing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expan sion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.16(a).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.16-2 Recreation
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.17-1 Transportation
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed flood control improvements would restore baseline capacities to the City’s existing flood control system and would not impact nearby roadways, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Construction activities associated with the majority of flood control maintenance work would be accomplished within 8 to 10 hours or generally within one day. Based on the size, location, condition, and maintenance frequency, approximately 12 facilities would require more than one day of work and up to 36 hours to complete the required maintenance. Construction activities would include short-term traffic trips associated with the transfer of construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for soil and construction material. Although construction traffic may have the potential to impact the local cir culation system, the scope of construction activity associated with the project is expected to be limited and a relatively limited number of construction hauling would occur. Thus, short-term construction traffic associated with the project would not conf lict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Construction activities also would not require any temporary lane closures on adjacent roadways.
As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
At project completion, the flood control facilities would be restored to baseline capacities and local roadways within and surrounding the project site would operate similar to existing conditions. No new land uses are proposed that would generate additional vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term operational impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Senate Bill 743, the City of Victorville City Council adopted local guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds of significance at their June 16 , 2020 meeting per Resolution No. 20-031. The VMT Thresholds establish screening criteria and thresholds of significance in determining when a project would result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA.
Based on the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines, VMT analysis can be screened out using either the daily vehicle trips generated by project or the project’s land use type. Since the pr oject is not a land use project, the project was screened using the daily vehicle trip thresholds, which states that VMT analysis is not required if the project
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.17-2 Transportation
results in a net increase of 1,285 or less weekday daily trips. The project would result in a total of approximately 494 trips per day (21 daily worker trips per day plus 473 daily hauling trips), which represents a conservative number of daily construction trips, overlapping the grading phase with the site preparation phase , as well as construction of multiple flood control improvement sites occurring simultaneously. As such, VMT analysis is not required based on the City’s adopted thresholds and impacts in regard to short -term construction VMT would be less than significant in this regard.
The proposed flood control improvements would not involve any new land uses that would generate new vehicle trips and associated VMT. Additionally, the project would not generate any new trips for maintenance activities beyond existing conditions. Thus, operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Overall, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves improvements at existing flood control facilities within the City and would not result in hazards on surrounding roadways due to geometric design features or incompatible uses.
Further, no new land uses are proposed that would be incompatible with its exist ing use as a flood control system .
Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4. 9(f). No lane closure s would be required during construction activities . Existing emergency access routes would be maintained during both short-term construction activities and long-term operations.
No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
The analysis of cultural resources is partially based upon the Cultural Resources Identification Study and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Victorville Ephemeral Washes Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International (dated March 2021); refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Assessment.
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.
As required under AB 52, the City of Victorville distributed letters to tribes that had previously requested to be notified of projects subject to CEQA. The letters provided a description of the project, and notified each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. As of the conclusion of the 30-day tribal response period under AB 52, only the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians provided a response to the City.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.5(a). Based on the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project, three cultural resources are located within the areas of potential effects (APE) identified for the proposed project:
• Tejon Road-Palmdale Cutoff (P -36-004203/CA-SBR-4203H). The resource is a 19 -mile historic road that begins at the Salt Lake-Santa Fe Trail and runs southwesterly to the Mormon Trail. It continues southwest to intersect with Tejon Road. The Tejon Road –Palmdale Cutoff was used as early as 1806, as well as during the1850s railroad surveys, and to deliver camels to Fort Tejon in 1857. This resource has not been previously evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. This resource runs through APE SW -00016-16A (southwest quadrant of the project); however, the road was not observable during the field survey and was likely part of the wash within the APE.
• Oro Grande Wash Road ( P-36-004269/CA-SBR-4269H). The resource is a 6 -mile-long road that begins at the Toll Road-Lanes Crossing Road, continues northeasterly on the bluff above the Oro Grande Wash, and traverses through the Oro Grande Wash until reaching the vicinity of Victorville. This resource has not been previously evaluated for inclusion in the N NRHP or CRHR. This resource runs through multiple APEs within the southwestern and southeastern quadrants of the project (APEs SW-00013, and SE-00001, -00001-1A, - 00004, and -0 0005). Since the roadway occurred within the Oro Grande Wash and there are no built environment features associated with the natural watershed, the road was not visible within the APEs during the field survey.
• Stoddard Wells Road (P-36-009360/CA-SBR-9360H). The resource is a historic wagon road that was one of the first alternative routes across the Mojave Desert to bypass the Mojave Road, and it served as the main wagon route from Victorville to Daggett during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. Stoddard Wells Road is understood to have been constructed in 1867 and then extended between 1896 and 1916.
The Tejon Road-Palmdale Cutoff and Oro Grande Wash Road were not previously evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR and were not observed during the field survey, and Stoddard Wells Road was not recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR due to lack of integrity of the resource. Therefore, based on the Cultural Resources Assessment, no historic properties are known to occur in the APEs and a finding of no historic properties affected has been determined to be appropriate for this undertaking. Thus, the project would not affect any resources listed or eligible for listing in the Califo rnia Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) A resour ce determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . As discussed in Response 4.18(a)(1), above, based on the Cultural Resources Report , no tribal cultural resources that meet the criteria under the AB 52 have been identified within the project area. However, during the tribal consultation process, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians identified a number of recommendations to minimize potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, that have been included in this Initial Study as Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require that potentially affected tribes (including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) be contacted in the event cultural resources are discovered during ground moving activities associated with the project. If the find is deemed significant,
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.18-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan would be prepared and implemented by the project archaeologist, in coordination with the affected tribe(s). Mitigation Measure TCR -1 would require archaeological and cultural documents prepared as part of the project be supplied to the City for dissemination to the affected tribe(s). The City would consult with the affected tribe(s) to minimize potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Upon implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources that may underlie the project site would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to the Mitigation Measure provided below, refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 within Section 4.5, Cultural Resources.
TCR-1 In the event of the discovery of any pre-contact and/or post-contact tribal cultural resources as part ground disturbing activities associated with the project, potentially affected tribes (including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians [SMBMI] Cultural Resources Department) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1. The potentially affected tribe(s) shall be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI), and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) for the remainder of the project, should said tribe(s) elect to place a monitor on-site.
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the proj ect (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the City of Victorville for dissemination to potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI). The City of Victorville and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) throughout the life of the project.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.18-4 Tribal Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water , wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication , the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The proposed project involves routine maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 127 city-owned flood control facilities and detention basins. Utility infrastructure (i.e gas mains and sewer lines) are aimed to be protected from f looding or degradation, refer to Section 2.0 , Project Description. The project does not propose any new development or new land uses that would result in increased demand for water, wastewater treatment, storm drain, or dry utility services nor would it require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
No Impact. The proposed project would not substantially increase water demand during construction or operational activities. Although a nominal amount of water may be used during maintenance activities, these activities would be minimal and temporary in nature and would have no impact on the City’s overall water supplies . No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The project would not introduce new development or a new land use that c ould generate additional wastewater beyond existing conditions. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. As a routine stormwater drainage and flood control facility maintenance project, t he project would not result in the implementation of any new land uses or development that would have the capability of generating solid waste. The only potential for solid waste generation would be from routine maintenance activities , when sediment and debris are removed from stormwater facilities. Most facilities identified for sediment removal would typically require between five and 60 cubic yards (CY) of sediment removal on an annual basis or after significant storm events. This solid waste generation would be occasional, on an as needed basis, and would not have the capacity to generate solid waste in excess of existing standards or impair solid waste reduction goals. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.19(d), above. The project would not result in substantial generation of solid waste and would comply with all Federal, State, and local standards pertaining to solid waste. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.20-1 Wildfire
4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or othe r utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.09 (g). T he project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, nor is the site designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.1 As a routine stormwater and flood control maintenance program, the project would not have the capacity to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan o r emergency evacuation plan. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, SW San Bernardino County, November 7, 2007.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.20-2 Wildfire
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a). The project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts in relation to flood protection by maintaining stormwater facilities such that baseline capacity is restored. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project has the potential to impact special -status plant and wildlife species, special -status vegetation communities, wetland waters of the State, and wildlife migratory corridors. As such, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require focused rare plant surveys during appropriate blooming periods for special-status plants with the potential to occur within the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require pre-construction nesting bird surveys consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) if construction occurs during the avian nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 would require pre-construction burrowing owl clearance surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 would include a requirement for desert tortoise preconstruction surveys prior to construction. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO- 4, the project is not anticipat ed to reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
As analyzed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines , nor c ause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 has been incorporated, which would require a qualified archaeologist to be hired, should cultural resources be discovered during project activities. All work within a 60-foot buffer of the find would cease. In the event that unavoidable pre -contact and/or post-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered, a Monitoring and Treat ment Plan would be developed. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance (SMBMI) Cultural Resources Department would be contacted regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information regarding the archaeologist’s initial assessment. With compliance to Mitigation Measure CUL- 1 and TCR-1, the project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Additionally, as discussed within Section 4.7 , Geology and Soils , the project site is known to be sensitive for paleontological resources, and the project site ranges in lithology between Low Sensitivity to Moderate/High Moderate Sensitivity. Although it is unlikely due to the shallow depths of ground disturbance associated with the project, should paleontological resources be encountered during project construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would require all project construction activities to halt near th e find until a paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Thus, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource within the paleontological sites, and impacts would in this regard would be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated . Cumulative impacts can occur as a re sult of the interactions of environmental changes from multiple projects that affect the same resources, transportation network, watershed, air basin, noise environment, or other environmental conditions. Such impacts could be short -term and temporary from overlapping construction impacts, or long-term due to permanent land use changes.
The proposed project consists of a maintenance program for 130 city -owned flood control facilities and detention basins. As noted in various sections of the initial study, the proposed maintenance practices would provide beneficial impacts in regard to the hydrology and water quality of the ephemeral washes on site and the vegetation within the project area. The project would not result in substantial population growth with in the area, either directly or indirectly; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not co nsidered “cumulatively considerable,” in consideration of the relatively nominal impacts of the project and mitigation measures provided.
Implementation of mitigation measures at the project-level would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the proposed project to be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. This Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, among other disciplines. As concluded i n this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.22-1 References
4.22 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this IS/MND . These documents are available for review at the City of Victorville, 14343 Civic Drive Victorville, California 92392, or accessed at the indicated web page.
1. California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
2. California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, July 28, 2021.
3. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed July 18, 2023.
4. California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/, accessed July 18, 2023.
5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mined and Geology, Mineral Land Classification of Concrete Aggregate Resources in the Barstow-Victorville Area, 1993.
6. California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, SW San Bernardino County, November 7, 2007.
7. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources , http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed July 18, 2023.
8. California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009.
9. City of Victo rville, City of Victorville Environmental Impact Report 20 30 (State Clearinghouse No. 20008021086), August 2008.
10. City of Victorville, City of Victorville General Plan 2030, April 2008.
11. City of Victorville, Victorville Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. 2411, passed September 15, 2020. (Supp. No. 46).
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06071C5150J, 06071C5785H, 06071C5805H, 06071C810H, 06071C5795H, 06071C5815H, 06071C5820J, 06071C6485J, 06071C6480H, 06071C6475H, August 28, 2008, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, accessed July 18, 2023.
13. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
14. Michael Baker International, City -Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, California, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters (Jurisdictional Delineation), December 2020.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.22-2 References
15. Michael Baker International, City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project City of Victorville, County of San Bernardino, California, Habitat Assessment, December 2020.
16. Michael Baker International, Cultural Resources Ident ification Study and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Victorville Ephemeral Washed Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County. March 2021.
17. San Bernardino County Assessor Clerk, Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer , https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d5 7a, accessed July 18, 2023.
18. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Keeling Curve, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/, accessed July 18, 2023.
19. State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines , Appendix D, Noise Element Guidelines, October 2017.
20. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Tran smittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency, April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed July 18, 2023.
21. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments , September 3, 2020.
22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of San Bernardino County, California, Mojave River Area , February 1986, https://archive.org/details/usda -general-soil-map-of-san-bernardino-county-california- mojave-river-area, accessed July 18, 2023.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed by July 18, 2023.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator , http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed July 18, 2023
25. Victorville Unified School District, School Locator , https://locator.decisioninsite.com/?StudyID=206282, accessed July 18, 2023.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.23-1 Report Preparation Personnel
4.23 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Victorville (Lead Agency)
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, California 92392
760. 955.5000
Doug Mathews, Director Public Works and Water
Joe Flores, Public Works Manager
Stephan Longoria, Senior Civil Engineer
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505
Richard Beck, Project Manager
Alan Ashimine, CEQA Manager
Jessica Ditto, Senior Environmental Analyst
Marc Beherec, Cultural Resources Manager
Zhe Chen, Air Quality/GHG/Noise/Energy Specialist
Ryan Phaneuf, GIS/Mapping
Jeanette Cappiello, Graphic Artist
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 4.23-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Prior to maintenance activities occurring, and during the appropriate blooming periods for special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the project site, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused rare plant survey in areas with suitable habitat for sagebrush loeflingia, Beaver Dam breadroot, pinyon rockcress, desert cymopterus, Mojave monkeyflower, short-joint beavertail, Latimer’s woodland-gilia, and Booth’s evening-primrose to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species. The surveys shall also survey for occurrences of special -status vegetation communities with the potential to occur within the project site. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports. The surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e., identifying all plant species to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity), and shall be inclusive of, at a minimum, areas proposed for disturbance. The botanical field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants will both be evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and, in a manner, which maximizes the likelihood of locating special-status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. The results of the survey shall be documented in a letter report.
If individual or populations of special -status plant species are found within the areas proposed for disturbance, the plants shall be avoided with an appropriate buffer (i.e., fencing or flagging). The surveys and reporting shall follow the 2018 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natura l Communities. For any portion(s) of the project site where focused rare plant surveys are conducted in accordance with applicable agency protocol, the survey results shall be valid until the beginning of the blooming period the following year (i.e., rare plant surveys do not need to be reconducted for recurring maintenance activities at the same location, provided the activities occur prior to the following blooming period).
Although not expected, if State - and/or federally-listed plant species and/or special-status vegetation communities are present and avoidance is infeasible, consultation with the CDFW and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) would be required and an Incidental Take Permit(s) from the CDFW and/or USFWS shall be obtained prior to the commencement of maintenance activities. If complete avoidance of a special-status vegetation community is not feasible, the City of Victorville shall mitigate for the loss of the vegetation community through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW -approved bank and/or land acquisition at a ratio deemed appropriate through consultation with CDFW.
If during the focused rare plant survey effort suitable plants providing habitat for Crotch bumble bee are detected (e.g., genera Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Cordylanthus, Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, Eriogonum Hypericum, Lantana, Lupinus, Salvia, Asclepias, Cirsium, Monardella, Keckiella, Acmispon, Euthamia, Ehrendorferia, Vicia, and/or Trichostema), a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for Crotch bumble bee, generally following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol for the Rusty patched bumble bee. If the Crotch bumblebee is detected during the preconstruction survey, project activities shall not occur in occupied habitat areas and the CDFW shall be consulted to minimize impacts in this regard.
BIO-2 If project-related activities are to be initiated during the general avian nesting season (January 1 st through
July 31st for raptors and February 1 st through August 31st for other avian species), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey for avian species in every survey area to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the area proposed project site. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), a nesting bird
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 5-2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
survey should be conducted within each survey area no earlier than seven days prior to the commencement of maintenance activities in that area. If work does not occur within seven days following the nesting bird survey, an additional survey will be required.
In the event that active nests are discovered, the extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the nest should be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided, and no maintenance activities within the buffer allowed, until the biologist has determined that the nest(s) is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest).
In addition, a preconstruction survey for suitable bat roosting habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of work. If suitable roosting habitat is detected, the CDFW shall be consulted to determine the appropriate steps to determine the presence or absence of daytime, nighttime, wintering and maternity roosting bats. For sites determined to have suitable bat roosting habitat, work shall be conducted outside of the maternity roosting season (March 1 through July 31) to the extent practicable. If project activities are determined to affect bat roosts, appropriate measures (e.g., bat roost, exclusion, replacement roost sites) shall be implemented as appropriate in consultation with CDFW.
BIO-3 Pre-construction burrowing owl (BUOW) clearance surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that BUOWs remain absent from the project site and impacts to BUOWs do not occur. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Reports . In accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation , two pre -construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in survey areas containing potential to support BUOWs, with the first survey occurring 14 -30 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities occurring and the second survey occurring 24 hours prior to disturbance. If work does not begin within these survey windows, an additional survey will be required. Once surveys are completed, the qualified bio logist shall prepare a final report documenting surveys and findings. If no BUOWs or occupied burrows are detected, project activities may begin.
If burrowing owl, active burrowing owl burrows, or sign thereof are found the qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a plan for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to commencing project activities. The plan shall include mitigation for permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat. Mitigation for impacts may include, but would not be limited to, mitigation lands that may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. Mitigation, and the appropriate ratio, shall be developed in consultation between the City and CDFW.
BIO-4 Desert tortoise and desert kit fox and their signs shall be searched for within suitable habitat for these species during the nesting bird clearance surveys (Measure BIO-2) up to seven days prior to maintenance work occurring. Sites where surveys shall be conducted are listed in Appendix B of the Habitat Assessment; refer to Appendix B , Biological Resources Reports . Surveys shall be con ducted by a qualified biologist(s) who has previously conducted desert tortoise and desert kit fox surveys in suitable habitat and/or who has specifically attended the annual “Introduction to Desert Tortoises” workshop hosted by the Desert Tortoise Council in Ridgecrest. Should maintenance work be scheduled outside of the nesting season, thereby eliminating the need for implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, the qualified biologist(s) shall still survey the final impact boundaries and a 100 -foot buffer at each survey area with suitable habitat for desert tortoise and desert kit fox. For any portion(s) of the project site where desert tortoise and desert kit fox surveys are conducted in accordance with applicable agency protocol, the survey results shall be valid for one year from the date of the survey (i.e., desert tortoise surveys do not need to be reconducted for recurring maintenance activities at the same location, provided the
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 5-3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
activities occur within one year of the survey). Should desert tortoise and/or desert kit fox, their signs, or their burrows be found in these areas or any other survey areas, the City of Victorville shall discuss the appropriate avoidance measures with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to incorporate during maintenance operations or, if avoidance is not feasible, appropriate consultation requirements under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified 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. In the event the find is determined to be of Native American origin, potentially affected tribes (including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians [SMBMI] Cultural Resources Department) shall be contacted, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR- 1, regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Tre atment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) for review and comment, as detailed within Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the construction contractor shall contact the City of Victorville City Engineer. With direction from the City Engineer, a paleontologist certified by the County of San Bernardino shall evaluate the find prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find.
If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 If the construction contractor discovers unknown wastes or suspect materials during construction that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the construction contractor shall:
• Immediately cease work in the suspected contaminant’s vicinity, and remove workers and the public from the area;
• Notify the City of Victorville Engineering Department and/or Fire Department; • Secure the area as directed by the City of Victorville Engineering Department and/or Fire Department; and
• Notify the implementing agency’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.
A Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall be appointed by the City and shall advise the responsible party of further actions that shall be taken, if required.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 5-4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 In the event of the discovery of any pre-contact and/or post-contact tribal cultural resources as part ground disturbing activities associated with the project, potentially affected tribes (including the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians [SMBMI] Cultural Resources Department) shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1. The potentially affected tribe(s) shall be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treat ment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA, a Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI), and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) for the remainder of the project, should said tribe(s) elect to place a monitor on-site.
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents crea ted as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the City of Victorville for dissemination to potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI). The City of Victorville and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with potentially affected tribes (including SMBMI) throughout the life of the project.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 6-1 Consultant Recommendation
6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study , we recommend that the City of Victorville prepare a M itigated Negative Declaration for the City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project . We find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second category be selected for the Cit y’s determination (see Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination).
December 2023
Date Alan Ashimine, CEQA Manager
Michael Baker International
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 6-2 Consultant Recommendation
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 7-1 Lead Agency Determination
7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _
I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4 have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
_
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
_
Signature:
Title: Director Public Works and Water
Printed Name: Doug Mathews
Agency: City of Victorville
Date: December 2023
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 7-2 Lead Agency Determination
This page intentionally left blank.
PART II: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR EPHEMERAL WASHES PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2024 2-1 Responses to Comments
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed project, and is included as Part I, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, of this document. The IS/MND was made available for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The public review period commenced on December 12, 2023 , and expired on January 10, 2024. The IS/MND and supporting attachments were available for review by the general public at the City of Victorville Engineering Department, 14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, California 92392.
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
During the public review period, correspondence was received on the IS/MND from a number of public agencies. The following is a list of the agencies that submitted correspondence related to the IS/MND during the public review period.
Comment
Letter No. Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
1 Alisa Ellsworth, Environmental Program Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region January 10, 2024 2 Tiffany Steinert, Engineering Geologist, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region January 9, 2024
3 Brandon Cruz, P.E., Regional Engineer
California Department of Water Resources, Southern Region, Division of Safety and Dams
December 28,
2023
Although the CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088), the City has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
January 10, 2024
Doug Mathews
Director, Public Works and Water
City of Victorville
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA 92392
City-Wide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project (PROJECT)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
SCH# 2023120308
Dear Mr. Mathews.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Victorville for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife resources. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et s eq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FB9C596-335D-4E3B-B1E7-FB22AA477D2C
Doug Mathews
City of Victorville
January 10, 2024