VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE
2007-2017 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA
DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 2008051094
PREPARED FOR:
VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
18422 BEAR VALLEY ROAD
VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA 92395-5850
PREPARED BY:
RGP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
8921 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
DECEMBER 2008
Victor Valley College
2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victorville, California
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2008051094
Prepared for:
Victor Valley Community College District
Contact: Mr. Stephen Garcia, Director
Facilities Construction & Contracts
18422 Bear Valley Road
Victorville, California 92395-5850
Prepared by:
RGP Planning & Development Services
8921 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
December 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
ES
Executive Summary
ES.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ES-1
ES.2
Project Summary........................................................................................................................ES-1
ES.2.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................................ES-1
ES.2.2 Existing Campus Facilities...........................................................................................ES-1
ES.2.3 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................ES-3
ES.2.4 Project Description Summary......................................................................................ES-3
ES.2.5 Project Approvals .........................................................................................................ES-5
ES.3
Summary of Project Alternatives...............................................................................................ES-6
ES.4
Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved............................................................................ES-6
ES.5
Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................ES-7
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Project Overview........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
Purpose and Use of the EIR......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR .......................................................... 1-2
1.4
Notice of Preparation................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5
Availability and Review of the Draft EIR...................................................................................... 1-4
1.6
Incorporation by Reference ......................................................................................................... 1-4
1.7
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 1-5
2.0
Project Description
2.1
Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Project Background...................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3
Project Setting .............................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4
Proposed Components of the Facilities Master Plan................................................................. 2-7
2.4.1 Master Plan Concept ..................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4.2 Environmental Design Components ............................................................................. 2-7
2.4.3 Campus Zones and Communities...............................................................................2-11
2.4.4 Landscape Concept .....................................................................................................2-12
2.4.5 Pedestrian Pathways ...................................................................................................2-13
2.4.6 Vehicular Circulation & Parking ..................................................................................2-14
2.4.7 Master Plan Phasing....................................................................................................2-15
2.5
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................2-19
2.6
Required Approvals....................................................................................................................2-20
3.1
Environmental Analysis
3.1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................3.1-1
3.1.2 Organization and Content.........................................................................................................3.1-2
3.2
Traffic & Circulation
3.2.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.2-1
3.2.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.2-5
3.2.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.2-6
3.2.4 Traffic Study Assumptions and Methodologies .......................................................................3.2-8
3.2.5 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.2-11
3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.2-14
3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.2-14
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page i
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Table of Contents
3.3
Air Quality
Page No.
3.3.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.3-1
3.3.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.3-7
3.3.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.3-8
3.3.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.3-10
3.3.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.3-16
3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.3-16
3.4
Noise
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.4-1
Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.4-5
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.4-5
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.4-9
Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.4-10
Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.4-10
3.5
Population and Housing
3.5.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.5-1
3.5.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.5-2
3.5.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.5-2
3.5.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.5-2
3.5.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.......................................................................................3.5-3
3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.5-3
3.6
Recreation
3.6.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.6-1
3.6.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.6-1
3.6.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.6-1
3.6.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.6-2
3.6.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.......................................................................................3.6-2
3.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.6-2
3.7
Biological Resources
3.7.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.7-1
3.7.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.7-3
3.7.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.7-4
3.7.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.7-5
3.7.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.......................................................................................3.7-6
3.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.7-6
3.8
Cultural Resources
3.8.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.8-1
3.8.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.8-1
3.8.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.8-2
3.8.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................3.8-2
3.8.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.......................................................................................3.8-4
3.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................................3.8-4
3.9
Hydrology/Water Quality
3.9.1 Existing Setting..........................................................................................................................3.9-1
3.9.2 Impact Significance Criteria .....................................................................................................3.9-5
3.9.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ............................................................................3.9-6
3.9.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.9-12
3.9.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.9-12
3.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.9-12
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ii
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Table of Contents
3.10
Public Services & Facilities
Page No.
3.10.1 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................... 3.10-1
3.10.2 Impact Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3.10-2
3.10.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ......................................................................... 3.10-2
3.10.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.10-4
3.10.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.10-4
3.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.10-4
3.11
Utilities and Service Systems (Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste)
3.11.1 Existing Setting....................................................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.2 Impact Significance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3.11-3
3.11.3 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant ......................................................................... 3.11-3
3.11.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3.11-8
3.11.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation.................................................................................... 3.11-8
3.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3.11-8
4.0
Project Alternatives
4.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
Criteria for Selection of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 4-1
4.3
Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.4
Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................ 4-2
4.5
Description and Analysis of Alternatives..................................................................................... 4-2
4.5.1 No Project....................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.5.2 Alternative Site Design – Existing Loop Road Alternate .............................................. 4-2
4.5.3 Alternative Site Design – Optional Housing Component ............................................. 4-3
4.5.4 Peach Avenue Extension Alternative (City of Victorville).............................................. 4-4
5.0
Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
6.0
Agencies and Persons Consulted
6.1
Victor Valley Community College District (Lead Agency)............................................................ 6-1
6.2
Facilities Master Plan Preparers and Contributors .................................................................... 6-1
6.3
EIR Preparers and Technical Consultants .................................................................................. 6-1
7.0
References .............................................................................................................................................. 7-1
A PPENDICES
The following technical appendices are provided in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File (PDF) format on the
CD at the back of the Draft EIR. Hard copy appendices are also available for review at Victor Valley College,
Facilities Construction & Contracts, Building 10, 18422 Bear Valley Road, Victorville, California 92395-5850
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and EIR Scoping Documents
A.1 – May 2008 Notice of Preparation
A.2 – May 2007 Initial Study
A.3 – NOP Comment Letters
Air Quality Study
Biological Resources Assessment
Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page iii
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure ES-1
Figure ES-2
Figure ES-3
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-8
Figure 2-9
Figure 2-10
Figure 2-11
Figure 2-12
Figure 2-13
Figure 2-14
Figure 3.2-1
Figure 3.2-2
Figure 3.2-3
Figure 3.2-4
Figure 3.2-5
Figure 3.2-6
Figure 3.4-1
Figure 3.4-2
Figure 3.9-1
Figure 3.9-2
Figure 3.9-3
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Table of Contents
Page No.
Regional Location.......................................................................................................................ES-2
USGS Map ..................................................................................................................................ES-2
Campus Master Plan Concept...................................................................................................ES-4
Regional Location......................................................................................................................... 2-1
USGS Map .................................................................................................................................... 2-2
City of Victorville General Plan Designations.............................................................................. 2-4
Campus Aerial Photograph.......................................................................................................... 2-5
Existing Campus Facilities ........................................................................................................... 2-6
Campus Master Plan Concept..................................................................................................... 2-8
Campus Zones ...........................................................................................................................2-11
Landscape Concept ...................................................................................................................2-12
Pedestrian Pathways & ADA Design..........................................................................................2-13
Proposed Parking Facilities .......................................................................................................2-14
Master Plan Phase 1..................................................................................................................2-15
Master Plan Phase 2..................................................................................................................2-16
Master Plan Phase 3..................................................................................................................2-17
Master Plan Phase 4..................................................................................................................2-18
Existing (2007) Areawide Traffic Conditions ...........................................................................3.2-1
Traffic Study Intersections & Geometrics ................................................................................3.2-2
VVC Campus Existing Transit Diagram.....................................................................................3.2-5
Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................3.2-9
Project-Related Trips (AM Peak Hour)................................................................................... 3.2-10
Project-Related Trips (PM Peak Hour)................................................................................... 3.2-10
Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels ..........................................................3.4-2
Common CNEL and Ldn Exposure Levels at Various Locations.............................................3.4-2
FEMA Flood Zones ....................................................................................................................3.9-2
Existing Stormwater Drainage ..................................................................................................3.9-3
Proposed Stormdrain System...................................................................................................3.9-7
Existing Loop Road Alternate ...................................................................................................... 4-3
Optional Housing Component Locations .................................................................................... 4-4
Peach Avenue Extension Project................................................................................................. 4-5
L IST OF T ABLES
Table ES-1
Table 2-1
Table 3.2-1
Table 3.2-2
Table 3.2-3
Table 3.3-1
Table 3.3-2
Table 3.3-3
Table 3.4-1
Table 3.4-2
Table 3.4-3
Table 3.4-4
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................ES-8
State and Local Agency Permitting Actions or Approvals ........................................................2-20
Summary of Existing (2007) Peak Hour Intersection Conditions...........................................3.2-4
Near-Term (2009) Levels of Service After Project Mitigation.............................................. 3.2-12
Long-Term (2025) Levels of Service After Project Mitigation.............................................. 3.2-13
Carbon Monoxide Microscale Analysis ....................................................................................3.3-9
Summary of Projected Construction Emissions by Phase ................................................... 3.3-12
Yearly Operational Emissions................................................................................................ 3.3-15
City of Victorville Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines ...................................................3.4-3
City of Victorville Ambient Noise Level Standards...................................................................3.4-4
Construction Equipment Noise Levels.....................................................................................3.4-6
Parking Structure Activity Noise Levels ...................................................................................3.4-8
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page iv
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
ES.1
INTRODUCTION
This Executive Summary has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines §15123(b)
which states than an EIR should contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its
consequences, and should identify:
•
•
•
“Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would
reduce or avoid that effect;
Areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by the agencies and
the public; and
Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate the
significant effects.”
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates the potential environmental
impacts associated with implementation of the Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan1 (FMP) by
the Victor Valley Community College District (VVCCD or District).
ES.2
PROJECT SUMMARY
ES.2.1
Project Location
The ±252-acre Victor Valley College (VVC) campus is located at 18422 Bear Valley Road in the
southeast portion of the City of Victorville, just north of the City of Hesperia and west of the City of
Apple Valley in southwestern San Bernardino County. The campus is at Sections 35 and 36 of
Township 5 North Range 4 West on the Hesperia quadrangle of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5-minute map series. The project location is shown on Figures ES-1 (Regional Location) and ES-2
(USGS Map).
The City of Victorville is accessible via Interstate 15 (I-15), U.S. Highway 395, and California State
Highway 18. Both I-15 and State Highway 18 are within approximately four miles and provide
regional access to the VVC Campus. Locally, three points of access to the VVC Campus are provided
from Bear Valley Road at Spring Valley Parkway, Jacaranda Road, and Mojave Fish Hatchery Road.
Jacaranda Road and Mojave Fish Hatchery Road form a continuous loop road through the campus.
ES.2.2
Existing Campus Facilities
The VVC Campus currently has 343,362 assignable square feet (ASF) of space dedicated to
academic instruction and support. The Campus presently has 52 buildings, including the recently
completed Advanced Technology building and the Speech/Drama addition to the Performing Arts
Center. The new Adaptive Physical Education building is under construction. Most of the buildings
and facilities east of Mojave Fish Hatchery Road (in Vocational Education and Maintenance &
Operation) are not built on permanent foundations. This is due to geotechnical conditions and
floodplain issues that have limited the type of construction that may occur. For this reason, FMP site
planning was aided by geotechnical and civil engineers who provided recommendations that guided
the physical layout and structural design of the Campus.
1
Available for review at http://www.vvc.edu/staff/VVC_Facility_MP_03-13-07_DRAFT.pdf
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
FIGURE ES-1: REGIONAL LOCATION
Source: USGS 7.5-minute map series, Hesperia & Apple Valley South quadrangles, rev. 1980
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE ES-2: USGS MAP
December 2008
Page ES-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
ES.2.3
Executive Summary
Project Goals and Objectives
The District’s goal as part of the California Community College system is to offer academic and
vocational education to students at the lower college division level. In addition, the District’s goal is
to advance California’s economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training,
and services that contribute to continuous workforce improvement.
As stated in the FMP (p. 6) regarding the design and Site Plan selection process:
The Master Site Plan was selected through a campus-wide voting process. It illustrates the
planning concepts for new roadways, new parking layout, new building shapes and
locations, landscape planning, pedestrian pathways, environmental graphics and campus
infrastructure plan diagrams. These planning concepts were developed through extensive
research and interviews taken during the Educational Master Plan development process and
from the reports, drawings and other documents provided by the College. Reports by each
engineering discipline on the planning team, the comments and critiques from interactive
meetings like Facilities Focus Group, the Blue Ribbon Committee meetings and the
Department Chair retreat also provided valuable information. Internal design critiques and
comments between the planning teams also provided direction in the development of the
plan. The culmination of all of the research and analysis are represented in the site plan
illustrating the model for future growth of Victor Valley College.
Insofar as it is a design product of input by public decision-makers, administrators, faculty, students
and staff, the FMP site planning concepts uphold the goals of the Educational Master Plan.
The FMP is intended to be a “Living Document” subject to change in the future and "designed to
enable the College to edit sections based on future conditions that may affect the College decisions
and directions." Anticipating those future conditions, the FMP evaluates existing land, infrastructure,
facilities and systems in relationship to the College's educational purposes, plans and needs,
specifying the capital outlay projects necessary to meet these needs. Some overall objectives
include:
•
•
•
•
Accommodating future enrollments,
Improving structural safety,
Mitigating against known natural hazards, and
Producing measurable environmental benefits through sustainable development.
ES.2.4
Project Description Summary
The Proposed Project is the 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan or FMP), which
establishes a 20-year plan for the campus. The VVC Campus presently serves an enrollment
population of approximately 9,100 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. Master Plan implementation
will serve a projected 14,616 FTE of enrolled students by the year 2020 with approximately 932,380
square feet of classroom and related building expansion. The overall Master Plan Concept, or Site
Plan, is presented on Figure ES-3.
The Facilities Master Plan evaluates existing land, infrastructure, facilities and systems in
relationship to the College's educational purposes, plans and needs, specifying the capital outlay
projects necessary to meet these needs. Some overall objectives include accommodating future
enrollments, improving structural safety, mitigating against known natural hazards, and producing
measurable environmental benefits through sustainable development. As such, the Master Plan
establishes design Standards and Guidelines that will become the road map for creating a modern,
safe and environmentally-responsible campus. The Standards provide design principles for building
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
heights, lighting, public space usage, campus safety and accessibility, and site signage. The
Guidelines provide recommendations for the campus site layout, buildings, landscaping and
hardscape scheme. Campus "sustainability" will be achieved through the use of LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) technical guidelines in site selection, water conservation and
management, energy efficiency, conservation of materials and resources, and indoor environmental
quality.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE ES-3: CAMPUS MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
December 2008
Page ES-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
The project elements summarized below are illustrated and described in detail in Chapter 2.0
(Project Description):
y
Wind Energy – A one-megawatt wind turbine will generate about 1,500,000 kWh/yr,
providing between 10 and 15 percent of the College's annual energy needs.
y
Solar Farm/Research Field – The College has entered into a partnership to install and
operate photovoltaic panels on approximately 1.5 acres of the Natural Resources
Department grounds at the northeast Campus boundary.
y
Landscape Concept – The College will use plant communities and species common to the
High Desert as a basis for teaching methods of sustainable landscaping. It incorporates
existing terrain and organizes the campus into four microclimate zones: 1) Riparian
Woodlands, 2) Desert Grasslands, 3) Joshua Tree Woodlands, and 4) Arroyo Desert Wash.
y
Pedestrian Pathways – The Master Plan designates pedestrian pathways as Formal, Scenic
Trails or Academic Steps. The pathways are designed with varying shapes, materials,
amenities, and functions. The pathways integrate ramp systems where the terrain exceeds
the maximum slope angle for access by those with disabilities, thereby complying with all
ADA code requirements throughout the pathway system.
y
Vehicular Circulation & Parking – The main entry onto the Campus will be from Jacaranda
Loop Road (formerly Fish Hatchery Road), which will be modified and relocated west of its
current alignment. The entrance will be signalized, lengthened and lined with trees, as shown
previously on Figure ES-3 (Campus Master Plan Concept). New and reconfigured parking
facilities will be constructed based on the City of Victorville’s parking regulations and
requirements.
y
Master Plan Phasing – The Master Plan includes five general phases that will serve as a
framework for a more detailed implementation phasing strategy over the approximately 20year planning period. Each construction phase will be timed and coordinated to minimize
disruption to the regular College schedule and operational activities.
ES.2.5
Project Approvals
This Program EIR will serve as the CEQA compliance documentation for the Victor Valley Community
College District (the lead agency), State, and local agencies with discretionary decisions associated
with the Proposed Project. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the agencies listed
below.
Agency
Permitting Actions or Approvals
Victor Valley Community College District
(Lead Agency)
Certification of a Final Program EIR and other CEQArelated actions and approvals; Approval of Design/Build
contracts
California Department of General Services
(DGS), Division of the State Architect (DSA)
Approval of architectural plans
City of Victorville
VVCCD will generally conform to the City’s applicable
zoning, building, on- and off-site drainage, and roadway
and infrastructure improvement requirements
San Bernardino County Fire Department
Review of architectural plans
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District (MDAQMD)
Establishes air quality regulations and permits for
construction
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
ES.3
Executive Summary
SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of alternatives
that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, while also reducing or
avoiding potentially significant impacts. Chapter 4.0 (Project Alternatives) evaluates the comparative
merits of the following alternatives:
•
•
•
•
No Project
Alternative Site Design – Optional Housing Component
Alternative Site Design – Existing Loop Road Alternate
Peach Avenue Extension Alternative (City of Victorville as CEQA lead agency)
The iterative stakeholder-driven design and analysis process that produced the FMP, as well as the
inability of other alternatives to further minimize potential environmental impacts, warrant a limited
range of project alternatives. As indicated in Section 2.2 (Project Background), the College began the
Master Plan process with a team of educational and site planners, engineers, architects, and other
specialized consultants evaluating a range of issues including traffic, utilities, infrastructure,
geotechnical constraints, energy technologies, and space planning and design. Site plan options
were presented to VVC faculty, staff, students and administrators, public officials, and the public
through a series of workshops. Comments and input directly shaped the final Site Plan design
scheme that was ultimately selected by Campus-wide vote, and which reflects a thorough
consideration of alternatives meeting VVC's future educational and physical needs.
Having undergone through evaluations during the FMP preparation process, the Alternative Site
Designs (i.e., Housing and Loop Road) both provide feasible facilities options with equivalent
environmental effects and could be implemented by the District at a later date and as conditions
warrant. The City's roadway alternative is generally feasible but must undergo project-specific
analysis to determine the extent of environmental effects and any required mitigation under CEQA.
All but one of the impacts identified in Chapter 3.0 as potentially significant are deemed to be less
than significant with mitigation. Particulate matter (PM10) emissions from long-term vehicular use
during the lifetime of the College cannot be feasibly reduced to below a level of significance by this
or any other single project. Similarly, no feasible project alternative could substantially lessen or
avoid potential environmental impacts beyond the levels already achieved by the proposed
mitigation measures.
ES.4
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The District issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study for the Proposed Project on May 20,
2008 with a 30-day public review period from May 20 to June 24, 2008. The District received
comment letters from two public agencies: 1) the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Lahontan Region and 2) the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
The NOP and agency comment letters are included in Appendix A.
Both agencies requested analysis of certain issues and recommended mitigation measures to
address potential impacts within their jurisdictional purview. Issues and mitigation recommendations
by RWQCB are addressed in Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality). Although the NOP
determined that Hazards and Hazardous Materials did not warrant further analysis in the Draft EIR,
the mitigation recommendations by DTSC are incorporated below in Section ES.5 (Summary of
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and will also be included in the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Plan (MMRP).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
An issue to be resolved concerns the City of Victorville's proposed plan to extend Peach Avenue
northeasterly from Bear Valley Road to Spring Valley Parkway. Though the City's plan is briefly
described in Chapter 4.0 (Project Alternatives), this EIR does not evaluate the City's project for CEQA
compliance since it would have effects related to right-of-way acquisitions, biological habitat
disturbance, circulation patterns and traffic controls, existing and future land uses, and drainage and
water quality, among others.
At this time, there are no known areas of controversy associated with implementation of the FMP.
ES.5
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental topics with potentially significant adverse impacts, the
recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance, and the level
of significance remaining after mitigation. Environmental effects found to be less than significant are
discussed in the Initial Study in Appendix A.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The College shall mitigate the forecast
intersection deficiency at Spring Valley Parkway and Driveway 2
(Francesca Rd) by providing an all-way stop sign or roundabout in 2009
or as traffic conditions warrant, based upon monitoring by the College
and/or City of Victorville. The College shall maintain these
improvements beyond Long-Term (2025) Campus buildout due to
forecast deficiencies in their absence.
The intersections affected
by project traffic and
cumulative traffic will
operate at acceptable levels
of service once the
mitigation measures are
implemented.
3.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The following intersections will be significantly impacted
by project traffic during one or both peak hours in the
years 2009 and 2025:
• Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd)
• Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: The College shall mitigate the forecast
intersection deficiency at Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road by
providing the following interim improvements in 2009 or as traffic
conditions warrant, based upon monitoring by the College and/or City of
Victorville:
• Southbound approach: One left-turn lane, one through lane, and two
right-turn lanes
• Eastbound approach: Two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right-turn lane
The College shall maintain these improvements beyond Long-Term
(2025) Campus buildout due to forecast deficiencies in their absence.
The Traffic Study (KOA 2007) notes that the Bear Valley
Road/Jacaranda Road intersection improvements are
also necessary because that entrance needs to allow for
all turns for vehicles wishing to enter and exit the
Campus. If the connector is left in its current condition
and is not long enough, vehicles wishing to turn left or
right out of the site will back up onto Jacaranda Road, or
onto Bear Valley Road for those wanting to turn right
onto Jacaranda Road. Without an extended connector,
the potentially heavy queue of vehicles along both roads
could cause safety hazards.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Prior to approving or implementing long-term
improvements at the Jacaranda Road/Bear Valley Road intersection, the
College shall obtain the services of a qualified traffic engineer to
evaluate traffic queuing and related safety hazards and to provide traffic
engineering recommendations to avoid such circumstances, including
but not limited to land use and road design modifications to the
Facilities Master Plan site plan. Evidence of such consultation shall be
provided to the City of Victorville Traffic Engineer in the form of a
mitigation plan demonstrating mitigated queue lengths, either with or
without extending the connector road between Bear Valley Parkway and
Jacaranda Road.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
December 2008
Page ES-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Potential Impacts
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Construction activities could exceed the
daily threshold value for ROG, primarily associated with
the use of paints and coatings, resulting in a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: During construction, the College shall specify
in bid and construction documents that the contractor(s) shall use
paints/coatings containing no more than 0.22 pound/gallon (100
gram/liter) VOC. The College shall also abide by any other measures
specified by the MDAQMD for the reduction of ROG.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 emissions would
exceed their respective MDAQMD criteria values. When
build-out year 2025 is considered, CO emissions are no
longer significant because CO emissions from vehicle
exhaust are declining faster than vehicles are being
added to the road and the yearly volume of CO emissions
is likely to be well under the 100 ton per year threshold
value. However, PM10 emissions would still exceed the
MDAQMD criterion, resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The College shall evaluate each phase of
FMP development to ensure that the following design measures are
applied:
• To encourage the use of mass transportation on an “every day”
basis, the College shall place bus stop shelters at any bus stops
situated or to be situated along any site frontage routes if not
already so equipped.
• To encourage the use of localized commercial facilities and reduce
the need for vehicle travel, the College shall include both bike lanes
(where feasible) and bike paths between the existing adjacent
residential and commercial development areas. Additionally, the
College shall provide sidewalks and walking paths to the commercial
area to the southwest as well as the adjacent open space areas to
the northeast.
• If not already in effect, the College shall establish a service and/or
newsletter/flyer that will promote the benefits of ride sharing and
include a sign-up so that riders may contact each other to carpool.
With the implementation of
the mitigation measures,
impacts for all emissions
will be reduced. However,
PM10 emissions associated
with site occupancy are
expected to remain
significant and unavoidable.
As such, the project
contribution to total regional
emissions is also
cumulatively significant.
Project-related PM10 (and PM2.5 component) is composed
of vehicle exhaust, clutch and brake dust, and entrained
road dust that is “kicked-up” by the tires as the vehicle
moves along the roadway. Because the majority of these
emissions are created from mobile sources miles away
from the College over which the College has no control,
the Air Quality Study (Synectecology 2008) prescribes
on-site measures to be incorporated into the project
design as a means of reducing vehicular trips to the
extent feasible. Measures are also prescribed to
minimize stationary source emissions.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: The College shall evaluate each phase of
FMP development to ensure that the following design measures are
applied:
• The College shall specify the use of energy efficient construction no
less than 5 percent beyond Title 24 requirements.
• The College shall specify the installation of Energy Star-certified (or
equivalent) efficient lighting, air conditioning, water heaters, and
appliances where applicable.
• The College shall specify the installation of energy efficient street,
December 2008
Page ES-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Potential Impacts
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
parking area, and field lighting.
• The College shall specify that all fixtures used for lighting of interior
classrooms and offices and exterior common areas shall be
regulated by automatic devices to turn off lights when they are not
needed while retaining a minimum level of lighting for safety.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Three special-status plant species (Booth’s eveningprimrose, desert cymopterus, and Joshua tree) and four
special-status wildlife species (burrowing owl, California
horned lark, yellow-breasted chat, and Mojave ground
squirrel) may occur within Zones B and F. Future
development within Zones B and F could impact these
species.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to land-clearing activities in Zones B and
F, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to identify whether special
status species occur at the site. If special status species are found, a
Biological Report shall be prepared to identify the special status species
and provide mitigation as required.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Construction activities associated with any of the future
development projects that result in the removal of
vegetation could have both direct and indirect impacts to
actively nesting birds, including the nests of specialstatus species. Direct impacts would include the
destruction of active nests, eggs, or young located within
vegetation removed as a result of construction activities.
Indirect impacts would include noise and disturbance
associated with the construction activities that cause
birds in adjacent habitats to abandon their nests.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prior to land-clearing activities in Zones B and
F between February 1 through September 15, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a nesting survey to identify any direct or indirect impacts to
actively nesting birds. If direct or indirect impacts are identified, the
biologist shall specify the appropriate mitigation measure(s) for these
impacts. Such measures may include avoidance of occupied nests,
working outside an established buffer area, modified scheduling of
grading and clearing, and monitoring of active nests during construction.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Freshwater emergent wetland (man-made), freshwater
pond (man-made), and riverine (Mojave River) habitats,
which are potential wetlands and/or jurisdictional
waters, were identified on and adjacent to the Campus.
Should activities associated with implementation of the
FMP affect the blue-line stream in Zone B or the Mojave
River and its tributaries, a Streambed Alteration
Agreement or other permit may be required.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to land-clearing and/or development
activities within 300 feet of the blue-line stream in Zone B or the Mojave
River, the District shall consult with a qualified biologist and/or the
CDFG to determine the necessity of a Streambed Alteration Agreement.
The District shall also determine USACE permit requirements under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prior to impacting the Mojave River
or tributary waters.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-10
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Potential Impacts
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural resource records search determined that
only a small portion of the project area (less than 10%)
has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
Therefore, there may be unknown cultural resources that
could be significantly impacted as a result of
implementation of the Facilities Master Plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to construction activities for
implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, a Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment shall be completed by qualified cultural
resources professionals. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
may recommend archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance.
A pre-construction meeting shall be conducted in which a qualified
archaeologist shall explain procedures necessary to identify, protect,
and safely remove potentially significant archaeological materials for
study and curation.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: If historical or unique archaeological
resources are discovered during construction activities, work in the
immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist
can evaluate the significance of the find and identify the appropriate
treatment of the resource. The methods used during monitoring and/or
recovery of archaeological resources shall be documented in a report of
findings. Construction activities may continue in other areas of the
project site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique
archaeological resources takes place. If the discovery proves significant
under CEQA, additional work such as testing or data recovery may be
necessary.
Although there is no knowledge of human remains on
the project site, the following standard condition is
included as mitigation.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: The discovery of human remains is always a
possibility during ground disturbances. The State of California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses these finds. This code
section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Corner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the
Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will
determined and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and
may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
December 2008
Page ES-11
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Potential Impacts
Earthmoving activities associated with construction, as
well as the unauthorized collection of fossil remains by
construction personnel, could result in the loss of
previously unrecorded fossil sites.
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: A pre-construction meeting shall be
conducted in which a qualified paleontologist shall explain procedures
necessary to identify, protect, and safely remove potentially significant
paleontological materials for study and curation. In the event
paleontological resources are encountered during earthwork, the
construction contractor will cease activity in the affected area and
redirect activities into another area until a qualified paleontologist can
evaluate the discovery, and implement appropriate treatment
measures, if necessary. The paleontologist would determine if the
paleontological material should be salvaged, identified, and
permanently preserved. Curation of specimens into an accredited
museum repository would be conducted by a qualified paleontologist,
who would also need to be retained to develop a mitigation program in
accordance with the County of San Bernardino Development Code
§82.20.030, including curation, to mitigate adverse effects associated
with the proposed project.
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Although the NOP/Initial Study determined that Soils and Geology topics did not warrant further analysis in the Draft EIR, the Geotechnical and Geologic Review and
Limited Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton 2006) states that each building would require separate liquefaction studies and structural
recommendations, only some of which were listed in that geotechnical report. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation identifies feasible locations for
improvements with respect to liquefaction hazards and other potential geologic/geotechnical hazards. However, that report is intended for planning purposes only
and was prepared without the availability of a conceptual site plan. The report assumed only that the Master Plan would consist of several classroom and office
structures up to three stories, and related improvements such as parking lots, an athletic field and landscaping.
To satisfy Division of the State Architect (DSA)
requirements for Public Schools and Colleges and to
ensure evaluation and mitigation of liquefaction and/or
other potential hazards, additional structure-specific
geotechnical investigation will be necessary when
preliminary structural and grading plans are available.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: As plans for new improvements progress,
design-specific subsurface geotechnical investigations shall be required
to satisfy State of California requirements (2001 CBC Section 1804A.2)
and to develop geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed
structure(s). As appropriate to the area of the Campus under evaluation,
a refined liquefaction evaluation shall be performed at that time, with
structure-specific recommendations to mitigate calculated settlement
due to liquefaction.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
December 2008
Page ES-12
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Potential Impacts
Executive Summary
Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Although the NOP/Initial Study determined that Hazards and Hazardous Materials did not warrant further analysis in the Draft EIR, the potential impacts identified
by DTSC are summarized below and DTSC's mitigation recommendations will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan (MMRP).
Impact HAZ-1: Since demolition of aging structures will
occur, lead-based paint and organochlorine pesticides
from termiticide applications may be potential
environmental concerns on the Campus.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to structural demolition, whether full or
partial, the College shall evaluate the potential presence of lead-based
paint and organochlorine pesticides. In so doing, the College shall
comply with DTSC recommendations for investigation and mitigation as
provided in DTSC's "Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with
Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead From Lead-Based
Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, dated June 9, 2006."
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Impact HAZ-2: If any area of the Campus has been used
for agricultural purposes, pesticides (e.g., DDT, DOE,
toxaphene) and fertilizers (usually containing heavy
metals) commonly used as part of agricultural operations
are likely to be present. These agricultural chemicals are
persistent and bio-accumulative toxic substances.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to development on, or use of soils from,
areas of the Campus historically used for agricultural purposes, the
College shall evaluate the potential presence of toxic substances
resulting from application of pesticides and/or fertilizers. In so doing,
the College shall comply with DTSC recommendations for investigation
and mitigation as provided in the "Interim Guidance for Sampling
Agricultural Soils (Second Revision), dated August 2002." This Guidance
shall be followed for sampling agricultural properties where
development is anticipated.
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated and
no cumulative impacts.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page ES-13
1.0 I NTRODUCTION
1.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Proposed Project is implementation of the campus planning and facilities concepts envisioned in
the Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan (FMP or Master Plan).1 The Facilities Master Plan is a
long-range plan that includes the construction of new campus facilities, renovations and
reconfiguring of existing spaces, and alterations of the internal circulation system and parking
facilities on campus over an approximately 20-year period. This long-range plan will help guide the
Victor Valley Community College District (VVCCD or District) in the development of needed campus
buildings and facilities to meet the students’ educational needs while also creating a cohesive
campus environment. The Facilities Master Plan establishes general design standards and
guidelines that will serve as a road map to create an organized, modern, safe, comfortable, user
friendly, welcoming and environmentally responsible campus. In keeping with the College’s vision for
developing a premier institution of higher learning, campus sustainability is one of the primary
components of this preliminary design scheme.
The ±252-acre Victor Valley College campus is located at 18422 Bear Valley Road in the City of
Victorville. The campus is at Sections 35 and 36 of Township 5 North Range 4 West on the Hesperia
quadrangle of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute map series. Both Interstate 15 (I-15)
and State Highway 18 are within approximately four miles and provide regional access. Locally, three
points of access are provided from Bear Valley Road: one at Spring Valley Parkway and two at
Jacaranda Road (formerly Fish Hatchery Road), which is a loop road through the campus.
This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the District (the Lead Agency)
to evaluate the potential significant short- and long-term environmental impacts associated with the
planning approvals, construction, and development of the Proposed Project.
1.2
PURPOSE AND USE OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is foundational to environmental law and policy in
California. CEQA sets broad policy statements that encourage environmental protection. CEQA’s main
objectives are to disclose to decision-makers and the public significant environmental effects of
proposed projects and to require agencies to avoid or reduce the environmental effects of proposed
projects by implementing feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
CEQA applies to discretionary public and private activities that must be approved by California public
agencies, including state, regional, county, city, and other local agencies. CEQA requires all of these
California public agencies to comply with both procedural and substantive requirements.
CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report when there is substantial
evidence that a project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment. The purpose of the EIR is
to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public with an objective and
1
Available at http://www.vvc.edu/staff/VVC_Facility_MP_03-13-07_DRAFT.pdf
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 1-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
1.0 Introduction
informational document that fully discloses the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
project. The EIR process also requires investigation and development of feasible mitigation measures
to reduce significant adverse environmental effects of a Proposed Project to a level of less than
significant.
CEQA requires that a lead agency neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless
significant environmental impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level (CEQA Guidelines
§15091) or the Lead Agency states in writing the reasons for approving a project with significant
impacts that cannot be fully mitigated (i.e., Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations).
The Draft EIR is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding the
implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is specific about providing disclosure where “[t]he EIR
is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered
the ecological impacts of its action…” (CEQA Guidelines §15003{d}). CEQA also requires
consideration of the whole or entirety of an action.
With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to:
•
Inform the decision makers, public, and agencies about the project;
•
Analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project;
•
Identify and implement feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives;
•
Provide notice to Responsible Agencies of pending required permits; and
•
Incorporate analyses to allow Responsible Agencies to make CEQA findings pursuant to this
EIR.
1.3
VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN PROGRAM EIR
The District has prepared this Draft Program EIR to address the implementation of the Facilities
Master Plan. A Program EIR is an EIR that is prepared on a series of actions characterized as one
large project and are related either:
2
•
Geographically;
•
As logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions;
•
In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern
the conduct of a continuing program; or
•
As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar
ways.”2
California code of Regulations (CCR). Natural Resources, Resources Agency, Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Types of EIRs, Program EIR. CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11, §
15168(a).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 1-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
1.0 Introduction
The advantages of using a Program EIR are:
•
Provides for a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than practical in an
individual EIR;
•
Focus on cumulative impacts that may be slighted in a case-by-case analysis;
•
Avoidance of continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues;
•
Consideration of broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early
stage when the lead agency has greater flexibility to deal with them; and
•
Reduction of paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).3
1.4
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The District issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study for the Proposed Project on May 20,
2008 with a 30-day public review period from May 20 to June 24, 2008. The District received
comment letters from two public agencies: the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(dated June 12, 2008), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region
(dated June 19, 2008). The NOP and the agency comment letters are included in Appendix A.
As a result of the NOP/Initial Study and comments to the NOP/Initial Study, the District identified the
following environmental concerns that are addressed in the Program EIR. These environmental
concerns are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics/Lighting
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Services Systems
Technical studies for traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical
conditions, and energy have already been prepared for the Proposed Project. As discussed in the
Initial Study, no significant impacts will occur with regard to the environmental issues of Agricultural
Resources, Land Use and Planning, and Mineral Resources. Therefore, these issues will not be
addressed in the Draft Program EIR. Although the Initial Study also excluded Geology & Soils and
Hazards & Hazardous Materials from further analysis in the Draft EIR, several issues arose during the
NOP comment period that warrant further discussion. Section ES.6 (Summary of Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures) provides clarification of mitigation measures to be implemented on a projectby-project basis during FMP buildout.
3
Ibid. § 15168(b).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 1-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
1.0 Introduction
For each of the environmental topics listed above, the Program EIR will include a description of
existing setting, potential impacts of the Proposed Project, and recommended mitigation measures
for any significant impacts.
1.5
AVAILABILITY AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
This Draft Program EIR was circulated for public review on December __, 2008. Copies were sent to
the State Clearinghouse for transmittal to all trustee, responsible, and other State agencies that may
have an interest in the project. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of where the Draft EIR could be
reviewed was published on the District’s website, in the Victorville Daily Press***, and was sent out
to individuals who previously expressed interest in the Proposed Project. The Draft EIR was also
distributed to the following local libraries for public review:
•
Victor Valley College, Library, Building 41, 18422 Bear Valley Road, Victorville, CA 923925849 (760/245-4271 Ext. 2262).
•
Victorville Public Library, 15011 Circle Drive, Victorville, CA 92395 (760/245-4222).
A period of 45 days (December __, 2008 to January ___, 2009) is established for public review of the
Draft EIR. Agencies, organizations, and individuals are invited to comment on the information
presented in the Draft EIR during this period. Comments should focus on the scope and adequacy of
the EIR in identifying and analyzing possible significant environmental impacts and how these
impacts may be avoided or mitigated. Commenters should explain the basis for their comments and
support these comments with substantial evidence such as data, references, expert opinion, or other
facts. All commentors should include their name and contact information with their comments.
All comments on the Draft EIR should be sent to the following contact:
Stephen R. Garcia
Director, Facilities Construction & Contracts
Victor Valley College, Building 10
18422 Bear Valley Road
Victorville, California 92395-5850
garcias@vvc.edu
(760) 245-4271
(760) 243-2781 FAX
Following the 45-day public review period, the District will prepare responses to comments and will
compile these comments and responses into a Final EIR. In addition, the Board of Trustees will hold
public hearings on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will need to be deemed complete by the District prior
to making a decision to approve or deny the Proposed Project.
1.6
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Chapter 7.0 (References) provides a listing of documents that are a matter of public record or are
generally accessible to the public and which were used to prepare this EIR (e.g., 2007-2017
Facilities Master Plan and 2007 Educational Master Plan). These documents are incorporated by
reference into this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. Where a document is incorporated by
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 1-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
1.0 Introduction
reference, its pertinent sections are briefly summarized and referenced in the EIR text. Copies of the
documents incorporated by reference may be reviewed at the following location:
•
1.7
Victor Valley College, Facilities Construction & Contracts Department, Building 10, 18422
Bear Valley Road, Victorville, CA 92392-5849 (760/245-4271).
ACRONYMS
ACM
BMP
CEQA
DEIR
DGS
District/VVCCD
DPEIR
DSA
DTSC
EIR
FEIR
LBP
LOS
MDAQMD
MM
NOA
NOP
NPDES
PEIR
RWQCB
SCA
SCH
SWPPP
SWRCB
asbestos-containing materials
Best Management Practices
California Environmental Quality Act
Draft EIR
California Department of General Services
Victor Valley Community College District
Draft Program EIR
Division of State Architect
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Environmental Impact Report
Final EIR
lead-based paint
Level of Service
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
mitigation measure
Notice of Availability
Notice of Preparation
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Program EIR
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Standard Conditions of Approval
State Clearinghouse
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 1-5
2.0 P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
The ±252-acre Victor Valley College (VVC) campus is located at 18422 Bear Valley Road in the
southeast portion of the City of Victorville, just north of the City of Hesperia and west of the City of
Apple Valley. The campus is at Sections 35 and 36 of Township 5 North Range 4 West on the
Hesperia quadrangle of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute map series. The project
location is shown on Figures 2-1 (Regional Location), and 2-2 (USGS Map).
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION
The City of Victorville is located in southwestern San Bernardino County. The City is situated in a
geographic subregion of the southwestern Mojave Desert known as the Victor Valley and commonly
referred to as the "High Desert" due to its approximate elevation of 2,900 feet above sea level. It is
the key city of the High Desert and located adjacent to the cities of Adelanto and Hesperia, and the
Town of Apple Valley. The Victor Valley is separated from other urbanized areas in Southern
California by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: USGS 7.5-minute map series, Hesperia & Apple Valley South quadrangles, rev. 1980
2.2
2.0 Project Description
FIGURE 2-2: USGS MAP
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Victor Valley Community College District (VVCCD or District) was created by public vote in 1960.
The first enrollment in 1961 was 500 students and a staff of 15 and classes were held on the
campus of Victor Valley High School. Two years later, in 1963, construction of Victor Valley College
began on a 230-acre ranch which is the current campus. Classes opened at the new campus in
1965. Today, the Victor Valley Community College District serves 2,200 square miles of the high
desert communities of Hesperia, Victorville, Adelanto, Apple Valley, Lucerne Valley, Helendale, Las
Flores, Oro Grande, Wrightwood, Piñon Hills, Summit Valley, and Phelan. The District also has a
satellite campus at the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) in Victorville and an undeveloped
160-acre parcel in Phelan.
The College offers two degrees, an Associate in Arts (AA) and Associate in Science (AS), and over 100
certificates of achievement. There are 140 full time instructors, approximately 500 part-time
instructors, and classified support personnel. The College has grown to a 2005 enrollment of
approximately 12,350 students (not full time equivalent students) each term. Enrollment by 2020 is
expected to grow to approximately 18,400 students (not full time equivalent students) each term.
To accommodate the expansion of facilities and educational programs, the College began the Master
Plan process with a team of educational and site planners, engineers, architects, and other
specialized consultants evaluating a range of issues including traffic, utilities, infrastructure,
geotechnical constraints, energy technologies, and space planning and design. Site plan options
were presented to VVC faculty, staff, students and administrators, public officials, and the public
through a series of workshops. Comments and input directly shaped the final Site Plan design
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
scheme that was ultimately selected by Campus-wide vote, and which reflects a thorough
consideration of alternatives (see Chapter 4.0, Project Alternatives) meeting VVC's future
educational and physical needs.
2.3
PROJECT SETTING
2.3.1
Regional Highways and Local Access
Although the City is separated from larger urbanized areas of Southern California, it is easily
accessible via Interstate 15 (I-15), U.S. Highway 395, and California State Highway 18. Both I-15 and
State Highway 18 are within approximately four miles and provide regional access to VVC. Locally,
three points of access to the VVC Campus are provided from Bear Valley Road at Spring Valley
Parkway, Jacaranda Road, and Mojave Fish Hatchery Road. Jacaranda Road and Mojave Fish
Hatchery Road form a continuous loop road through the campus.
2.3.2
Planned Land Uses
The VVC Campus is in the Spring Valley Lake Planning Area (SVLPA), as designated by the City of
Victorville General Plan (see graphic below). The Planning Area includes incorporated and
unincorporated land north of Bear Valley Road, south of and west of the Mojave River and east of
Ridgecrest Road and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad line. The northern third of
the SVLPA is within the boundaries of the Mojave Narrows Regional Park, which is operated by San
Bernardino County and is designated as Open Space. In the southern two thirds, residential land
uses surround designated Open Space uses including the lake, golf course, and adjacent Mojave
River Flood Plain. The existing land uses in the unincorporated portion of the SVLPA are consistent
with the General Plan.
r
VVC Campus
Source: Victorville General Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
As shown on Figure 2-3 below, the City's General Plan designates VVC as Public/Institutional, which
refers to land uses and activities that are predominately used for public purposes, or owned or
operated by a public entity. Activities in the this category include city and county buildings, public and
private schools, colleges, and public utilities and city yards. The P-C (Public and Civic) zone district
corresponds to this land use designation. The maximum lot coverage for development in this
category is forty percent (40%). The maximum building height within this land use district is fifty (50)
feet. Properties north and west of the Campus include various residential and commercial
designations.
VVC Campus
Adapted from Victorville General Plan Land Use Element, Fig. 11
FIGURE 2-3
CITY OF VICTORVILLE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
2.3.3
Existing Land Uses
As indicated above, Victor Valley College is in the southern portion of the Spring Valley Lake Planning
Area. The southern two-thirds of the SVLPA are nearly completely developed within the Spring Valley
Lake residential subdivision, which accounts for most of the area's development. Victor Valley
College, as well as a limited amount of commercial development, is located in the City limits in this
southern area. Commercial property is located along Bear Valley Road, and also at Spring Valley
Parkway and Country Club Lane. Land uses adjacent to the Campus include vacant land and
commercial buildings to the west, a golf course and residential structures to the north, and the
Mojave River to the east, as shown on Figure 2-4, Campus Aerial Photograph.
The VVC Campus currently has 343,362 assignable square feet (ASF) of space dedicated to
academic instruction and support. Figure 2-5, Existing Campus Facilities, shows that the Campus
presently has 52 buildings, including the recently completed Advanced Technology building and the
Speech/Drama addition to the Performing Arts Center. The new Adaptive Physical Education building
is under construction.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 2005 NAIP Aerial
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
2.0 Project Description
FIGURE 2-4: CAMPUS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
December 2008
Page 2-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
Academic Buildings Legend
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-5
EXISTING CAMPUS FACILITIES
December 2008
Page 2-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
Most of the buildings and facilities east of Mojave Fish Hatchery Road (in Vocational Education and
Maintenance & Operation) are not built on permanent foundations. This is due to geotechnical
conditions and floodplain issues that have limited the type of construction that may occur. For this
reason, FMP site planning was aided by geotechnical and civil engineers who provided
recommendations that guided the physical layout and structural design of the Campus. Existing site
conditions are further described throughout Chapter 3.0 for each of the environmental issues
addressed in this EIR.
2.4
PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF THE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
2.4.1
Master Plan Concept
The Proposed Project is the 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan or FMP), which
establishes a 20-year plan for the campus. The VVC Campus presently serves an enrollment
population of approximately 9,100 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. Master Plan implementation
will serve a projected 14,616 FTE of enrolled students by the year 2020 with approximately 932,380
square feet of classroom and related building expansion. The overall Campus Master Plan Concept,
or Site Plan, is presented on Figure 2-6.
The Facilities Master Plan evaluates existing land, infrastructure, facilities and systems in
relationship to the College's educational purposes, plans and needs, specifying the capital outlay
projects necessary to meet these needs. Some overall objectives include accommodating future
enrollments, improving structural safety, mitigating against known natural hazards, and producing
measurable environmental benefits through sustainable development. As such, the Master Plan
establishes design Standards and Guidelines that will become the road map for creating a modern,
safe and environmentally-responsible campus. The Standards provide design principles for building
heights, lighting, public space usage, campus safety and accessibility, and site signage. The
Guidelines provide recommendations for the campus site layout, buildings, landscaping and
hardscape scheme. Campus "sustainability" will be achieved through the use of LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) technical guidelines in site selection, water conservation and
management, energy efficiency, conservation of materials and resources, and indoor environmental
quality.
2.4.2
Environmental Design Components
In August 2007, VVC’s Board of Trustees approved a $10.3 million contract with Chevron Energy
Solutions L.P. to put solar panels and a wind turbine on Campus, funded largely by the College's
savings on energy bills. In September 2007, the VVC President signed onto the American College &
University Presidents Climate Commitment,1 which requires VVC to take inventory of its emissions in
one year and come up with an action plan to become “climate neutral” within two years of signing.
Items in the commitment also include:
•
•
•
•
•
1
Making climate neutrality and sustainability part of the curriculum.
Build new Campus projects to federal Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Silver standards.
Begin purchasing 15 percent of energy from renewable sources within a year of signing.
Purchase Energy Star certified products in all areas where they are available.
Establish a policy or committee that supports shareholder proposals on sustainability and
climate at companies where the college has invested its endowment.
Victorville Daily Press. October 7, 2007. "VVC president signs climate commitment."
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
2.0 Project Description
FIGURE 2-6: CAMPUS MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
VVC's commitment to environmental sustainability subsequently became a central focus in the
Facilities Master Plan, as demonstrated throughout this EIR. Insofar as the FMP's environmental and
energy programs are founded in sound planning and engineering; long-term cost-efficiency and
benefits; technological advancement and partnerships; and faculty/student support, the positive
environmental effects will far outweigh the temporary environmental effects that are often the
subject of concern during the CEQA process. Traffic disruption, air emissions, and noise during
construction can and will be mitigated to the extent possible. While such mitigation provides shortterm relief to affected nearby land uses and residents, the environmental enhancement and
protection programs in the FMP will ensure long-term environmental health, public safety, and land
use compatibility.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
One-Megawatt Wind Turbine
In accordance with CEQA, the College prepared a Draft Initial Study for a proposed one-megawatt
wind turbine and circulated it for public review from October 29, 2007 to December 2, 2007. In
considering land use compatibility issues with nearby Spring Valley Lake residents, the College
located the wind turbine in the Lower Campus near the Mojave River and away from homes. With
implementation of mitigation measures and best management practices to prevent or minimize
potentially significant impacts, the District determined that the turbine project would not have a
significant effect on the environment. In April 2008, the Victor Valley Community College Board of
Trustees adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the turbine, providing environmental
clearance for project implementation.
A one-megawatt wind turbine will generate about 1,500,000 kWh/yr using a 17 percent capacity
factor, which is considered conservative. Assuming an average electrical load of 1.3 megawatts at
the College, the wind turbine will generate between 10 and 15 percent of the energy needs on an
annual basis.2
Solar Technology and Design
In addition to wind energy, the FMP proposes to achieve and maintain the goal of Campus
sustainability by using other alternative energy technology such as solar panels combined with
building orientation, landscaping and shading considerations to regulate heat gain/loss. FMP
provisions include:
2
y
Solar Farm/Research Field
o Partnership with Chevron Energy Solutions to install and operate photovoltaic panels on
approximately 1.5 acres of the Natural Resources Department grounds at the northeast
Campus boundary.
y
Building Orientation, Materials and Shading
o Use building-integrated photovoltaics to generate electricity on-site
o Locate buildings and site elements (plazas, patios, etc.) to take advantage of seasonal
sun angles, solar access, and solar orientation. Includes orienting longer side of buildings
on east-west axis to maximize heating and cooling benefits
o Specify light colored or reflective colors and materials to minimize heat gain
o Specify windows and glazing systems with high R-vales and low-e coatings to minimize
heat gain and loss.
o Provide roof overhangs, awnings, canopies, porches, or blinds to prevent unwanted solar
heat gain.
o Provide roofing materials with high reflectance and high emissivity, or install green roof to
minimize thermal gradient difference between developed and undeveloped areas.
o Use landscape to support passive heating and cooling in outdoor and indoor spaces and
to create appropriate natural ventilation corridors.
o Shape buildings to maximize effects of local wind conditions and circulate breezes.
y
Other Alternative Energy Technologies
o Promote alternative fuel vehicles by providing charging stations for electric vehicles at
certain parking locations.
o Provide solar shade structures at designated parking areas to produce electricity for the
College. These shaded parking areas will be a benefit during hot or rainy days.
Chevron Energy Solutions. Response to Victor Valley College Questions Dated 12/5/05. Accessed at
http://www.vvc.edu/staff/FFG.htm
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
Energy Conservation Through Efficiency
With Chevron Energy Systems' technical management, VVC will be installing energy efficient
equipment that exceeds the Title 24 requirements based on actual reduction in energy consumption.
Projects are to include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New energy management system and complete upgrade of the Central Plant
Chilled water and hot water to Auxiliary Gymnasium and Speech/Drama Studio
Heating and ventilation improvements in the Art, Gym, Performing Arts Center, and
Counseling/Administration buildings.
Mechanical upgrades and complete change-out of air distribution equipment
New computerized irrigation system
Use lake water instead of city water for irrigation
High efficiency lighting and lighting control upgrades in every building on campus
Solar photovoltaic parking structures
More efficient and reliable boilers, chillers, lighting systems, and energy management systems not
only reduce energy usage but also improve the learning and working environment for the students,
faculty, and staff. When these projects are completed VVC estimates that they will have achieved the
following reductions:3
•
•
•
•
1,446 tons/year of Greenhouse Gas (CO2) avoided
2,373 pounds/year of NOx - Acid Rain avoided
Equivalent to preserving 11 acres per year of forest from deforestation
Equivalent to removing 284 cars per year off the highways
LEED Technical Guidelines
Chapter 5 (Sustainability Guidelines) of the FMP provides a comprehensive list of strategies for
addressing the following primary LEED environmental categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Selecting Sustainable Sites
Water Conservation and Management
Energy Efficiency
Conservation of Materials and Resources
Indoor Environmental Quality
Since the planning, design, and construction processes that are subject to CEQA analysis are also
integral to the College's LEED initiative, it is important to understand the numerous activities that will
be typical of building and other facilities construction, and how they will be implemented under the
FMP's Sustainability Guidelines. Those Guidelines provide examples of how FMP implementation will
be "self-mitigating" in that it will reduce or avoid many of the potential environmental effects that are
typical of development projects designed without sustainability in mind.
An example of the interrelated nature of LEED and CEQA is in the category of Conservation of
Materials and Resources. Construction materials have replacement life-cycles and environmental
costs associated with their manufacture, transport, use, replacement, and disposal – all of which are
integral factors in evaluating environmental performance. Those costs are highly dynamic as new
products and materials are developed; therefore, they are not reasonably quantified in EIRs for longterm projects. However, the fundamental environmental performance criteria serve as an ongoing
basis for the LEED ratings and certifications that VVC intends to achieve for all new Campus
development. As such, this Program EIR relies in part on the LEED process to ensure that certain
environmental issues are addressed at the project level throughout the FMP program period.
3
Energy and the Environment statement at http://www.vvc.edu/offices/facilities/energy.htm
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-10
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.4.3
2.0 Project Description
Campus Zones and Communities
The Master Plan organizes the campus into seven Zones based on predominant planned uses (see
Figure 2-7, Campus Zones). The Master Plan further subdivides each Zone into Campus
Communities, which provide grouped and complementary departmental facilities and uses. Each
Campus Community will be subject to specific design criteria and unique identity branding graphics.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-7: CAMPUS ZONES
December 2008
Page 2-11
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.4.4
2.0 Project Description
Landscape Concept
The Landscape Concept will use plant communities and species common to the High Desert as a
basis for teaching methods of sustainable landscaping. It incorporates existing terrain and organizes
the campus into the following four microclimate zones: 1) Riparian Woodlands, 2) Desert
Grasslands, 3) Joshua Tree Woodlands, and 4) Arroyo Desert Wash (see Figure 2-8).
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-8: LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
December 2008
Page 2-12
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.4.5
2.0 Project Description
Pedestrian Pathways
The Master Plan designates pedestrian pathways as Formal, Scenic Trails or Academic Steps. The
pathways are designed with varying shapes, materials, amenities, and functions. The pathways
integrate ramp systems where the terrain exceeds the maximum slope angle for access by those
with disabilities, thereby complying with all ADA code requirements throughout the pathway system.
Figure 2-9 shows the pedestrian pathway system, with emphasis on the interconnection with the ADA
design elements.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-9: PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS & ADA DESIGN
December 2008
Page 2-13
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.4.6
2.0 Project Description
Vehicular Circulation & Parking
The circulation and parking design elements underwent review and analysis by traffic engineers
during the Master Plan preparation process. The main entry onto the Campus will be from Jacaranda
Loop Road (formerly Fish Hatchery Road), which will be modified and relocated west of its current
alignment. The entrance will be signalized, lengthened and lined with trees, as shown previously on
Figure 2-6 (Campus Master Plan Concept).
New and reconfigured parking facilities will be constructed based on the City of Victorville’s parking
regulations and requirements, and the parking layout proposed in Figure 2-10 reflects the
anticipated number of parking spaces needed to meet Victor Valley College’s expected growth.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-10: PROPOSED PARKING FACILITIES
December 2008
Page 2-14
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.4.7
2.0 Project Description
Master Plan Phasing
The Master Plan includes five general phases that will serve as a framework for a more detailed
implementation phasing strategy over the approximately 20-year planning period. Each construction
phase will be timed and coordinated to minimize disruption to the regular College schedule and
operational activities. The following sections describe the broadly-defined phasing program.
PHASE ONE: Site Work and Partnerships
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
FIGURE 2-11: MASTER PLAN PHASE 1
Phase One administrative tasks are at the core of Master Plan implementation and will include
initiation of a Public/Private Partnership program to spread fiscal building and maintenance
responsibilities for non-State-funded projects; a local bond campaign; and identification of satellite
facilities with minimal renovation/ supply requirements for expanding programs and outreach. The
construction of academic facilities will be based on the success of the bond measure and State
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-15
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
funding applications. If the bond does not pass, the Facilities Master Plan schedule will be extended
through the entire 20-year period. If it does pass, a 10-year building program could be realized.
The first physical modifications to the Campus will also occur in this multi-step phase and include
phased demolition of up to 13 buildings and portable facilities, as well as maintenance and upkeep
of existing facilities. New construction will include reconfiguration of the “Loop Road” and main entry
to maximize usable building area for the new Technical Education (TechED) zone; rerouting of
utilities; and various landscape and parking improvements, particularly along the Loop Road and
Bear Valley Road frontage.
PHASE TWO: Academic Buildings
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-12: MASTER PLAN PHASE 2
December 2008
Page 2-16
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
PHASE THREE: TechED or Middle Campus
Phase Three will complete the TechED zone with construction of office, classroom and lab buildings
in the Middle Campus. Additional hardscape circulation elements will be constructed to provide
connectivity with the Lower and Upper Campus walkways. The existing track/football field and
adjacent tennis and baseball facilities will be removed and replaced with a new 2,000-seat, lighted
stadium with a football field and an NCAA regulation size running track. Lighting will be focused on
the playing field and light spillage controlled.
Phase Three will also include demolition of the existing Administrative Services building and Annex in
the southwest corner of the campus, as well as removal of the remaining Vocational Education
buildings in the hazard-prone Lower Campus. Existing Maintenance & Operations (M&O) buildings
will also be removed, but they will be consolidated and placed in new facilities in the same vicinity.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-13: MASTER PLAN PHASE 3
December 2008
Page 2-17
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
PHASE FOUR: Public/Private Partnership Facilities
Phase Four will be the final stage of Campus construction and renovations, with most new building
construction occurring in the Core Campus and consisting of new Business, Liberal Arts and
Humanities & Social Sciences (2) buildings, along with a renovated Liberal Arts building for the Math
Department. Other new facilities will be constructed to house Physical Education, a Health &
Wellness Center, an Aquatics Center, and an Equine Center. Similar to other Public/Private
Partnership facilities in the Campus Outreach zone, the proposed Phase Four facilities at the
southwest corner of the campus will be flexible based on funding and are expected to include a mix
of retail/fast food, offices, hotel and conference facilities. In addition, through a partnership with
Chevron and the College, a new 5-megawatt wind turbine tower and solar energy research field will
be located adjacent to the athletic fields in the Lower Campus area, as shown on Figure 2-14.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
FIGURE 2-14: MASTER PLAN PHASE 4
December 2008
Page 2-18
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 Project Description
PHASE FIVE: Facilities Tracking and Evaluation
The final phase of the Master Plan program will involve monitoring the Campus facilities and tracking
their attainment of criteria relative to the Educational Master Plan, sustainable design guidelines,
energy efficiency projections, and budget, scheduling and maintenance goals.
2.5
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District’s goal as part of the California Community College system is to offer academic and
vocational education to students at the lower college division level. In addition, the District’s goal is
to advance California’s economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training,
and services that contribute to continuous workforce improvement.
As stated in the FMP (p. 6) regarding the design and Site Plan selection process:
The Master Site Plan was selected through a campus-wide voting process. It illustrates the
planning concepts for new roadways, new parking layout, new building shapes and
locations, landscape planning, pedestrian pathways, environmental graphics and campus
infrastructure plan diagrams. These planning concepts were developed through extensive
research and interviews taken during the Educational Master Plan development process and
from the reports, drawings and other documents provided by the College. Reports by each
engineering discipline on the planning team, the comments and critiques from interactive
meetings like Facilities Focus Group, the Blue Ribbon Committee meetings and the
Department Chair retreat also provided valuable information. Internal design critiques and
comments between the planning teams also provided direction in the development of the
plan. The culmination of all of the research and analysis are represented in the site plan
illustrating the model for future growth of Victor Valley College.
Insofar as it is a design product of input by public decision-makers, administrators, faculty, students
and staff, the FMP site planning concepts uphold the goals of the Educational Master Plan.
The FMP is intended to be a “Living Document” subject to change in the future and "designed to
enable the College to edit sections based on future conditions that may affect the College decisions
and directions." Anticipating those future conditions, the FMP evaluates existing land, infrastructure,
facilities and systems in relationship to the College's educational purposes, plans and needs,
specifying the capital outlay projects necessary to meet these needs. Some overall objectives
include:
•
•
•
•
Accommodating future enrollments,
Improving structural safety,
Mitigating against known natural hazards, and
Producing measurable environmental benefits through sustainable development.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-19
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
2.6
2.0 Project Description
REQUIRED APPROVALS
This Program EIR will serve as the CEQA compliance documentation for the Victor Valley Community
College District (the lead agency), State, and local agencies with discretionary decisions associated
with the Proposed Project. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the agencies listed in
Table 2-1.
TABLE 2-1
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY PERMITTING ACTIONS OR APPROVALS
Agency
Permitting Actions or Approvals
Victor Valley Community College District
(Lead Agency)
y Certification of a Final Program EIR and other
CEQA related actions and approvals
y Approval of Design/Build contracts
California Department of General Services (DGS)
Division of the State Architect (DSA)
y Approval of architectural plans
City of Victorville
y VVCCD will generally conform to the City’s
applicable zoning, building, on- and off-site
drainage, and roadway and infrastructure
improvement requirements
San Bernardino County Fire Department
y Review of architectural plans
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
(MDAQMD)
y Establishes air quality regulations and permits
for construction
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 2-20
3.1 E NVIRONMENTAL A NALYSIS
3.1.1
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Facilities Master Plan and Educational Master Plan process, the College prepared an Initial
Study for the Proposed Project. The Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan Initial Study prepared in
May 2007 is on file at Victor Valley College. An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by a Lead
Agency to determine the appropriate CEQA document. If the Initial Study concludes that the project
without mitigation may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR should be prepared. The
Initial Study also is used to focus the EIR on the potential significant effects and allows the Lead Agency
to avoid unnecessary analysis on those effects that are not potentially significant.
Based on this Initial Study, the College, as Lead Agency, has determined that a Program EIR will be
required for the Proposed Project. This Program EIR will focus on the following environmental issues as
identified in the Initial Study.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics/Lighting
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Services Systems
For each of the above environmental concerns, the Project EIR will include a description of existing
setting, potential impacts of the Proposed Project, and recommended mitigation measures for any
significant impacts. Project alternatives to be addressed in the EIR will include No Project and Alternative
Designs.
Technical studies for traffic, geotechnical conditions, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
and energy have already been prepared for the Proposed Project.
As discussed in the Initial Study, no significant impacts will occur to the environmental issues of
agricultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, and
mineral resources, Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the Draft Program EIR.
The following environmental topics are not addressed in this EIR because potential environmental
effects were either avoided or reduced by Standard Conditions of Approval (SCA) and/or Best
Management Practices (BMPs), or have impacts that are less than significant due to known existing
conditions. These topics are:
•
Agricultural Resources – There are no agricultural resources on the Project site or in the
Project vicinity. The project site is identified as urban and built-up land according to the San
Bernardino County Important Farmland Map.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.1-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.1 Environmental Analysis
•
Geology and Soils – A “Geotechnical and Geologic Review and Limited Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Victor Valley College Master Plan” was prepared
by Leighton Consulting, Inc. in January 2006. The purposes of this investigation were to
identify significant geologic and seismic hazards on the campus, explore subsurface
conditions within the campus, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for
planning purposes. The report found implementation of the Facilities Master Plan was
feasible if the report recommendations were followed during implementation (specific design
geotechnical specifications for final development, grading, engineering, etc. plans) of the
Master Plan projects. The Proposed Project is located in a developed urban area. The
Proposed Project will comply with all applicable geotechnical requirements of the Uniform
Building Code and the Division of the State Architect that oversees community college
educational facilities approval and construction. This compliance will reduce any geology and
soils impacts to less than significant.
•
Hazards & Hazardous Materials – The Proposed Project would comply with all SOCs/BMPs
and the Division of the State Architect requirements regarding demolition and construction
activities as part of implementation of the Facilities Master Plan. VVCCD also complies with
all local, state, and federal standards and regulations regarding the safe transport, storage,
use, and disposal of any hazardous materials. The campus site was not identified within the
Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database that identified Feral
Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, voluntary cleanup sites and school cleanup sites. The
campus site and surrounding area does not appear in any of the following hazardous site
lists: DTSC’s Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites (Cortese) List; DTSC – Deed Restricted
Sites; DTSC – Enforcement Cases; DTSC – Permitted or Authorized Hazardous Waste
Facilities; or U. S. Environmental Protection Agency – CERCLIS List. The above compliance
will reduce any hazards and hazardous materials impacts to less than significant.
•
Land Use & Planning – Victor Valley College is an existing campus that has been in this
location for over 40 years. The campus site is designated Public/Institutional in the City of
Victorville’s General Plan. The project site is not located within the jurisdiction of a Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat
conservation plan. Therefore, there are no impacts association with land use and planning.
•
Mineral Resources – Per the Initial Study, no mineral resources of value have been identified
in the vicinity of the project site. The project area has not been designated as a Significant
Mineral Aggregate Resources Area by the State Department of Conservation. Therefore, no
impacts from the loss of mineral resources will occur.
3.1.2
ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT
To assist the reader in comparing information about the various environmental issues, each analysis
section presents information under the following headings:
•
Existing Setting – This introductory section describes the existing conditions or
environmental baseline of the Project site and in the Project vicinity. In accordance with
Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional existing settings are
discussed as they existed at the time the NOP was published (October 2006). The
environmental baseline is the basis for documenting the nature and extent of impacts
anticipated to result from project implementation.
•
Impact Significance Criteria – Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR
"identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects"
and "impacts" are synonymous under CEQA and are used interchangeably in this EIR
(Guidelines §15358). A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.1-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.1 Environmental Analysis
"a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project" (Guidelines §15382).
Impact significance criteria, or thresholds of significance, are used to determine whether the
proposed project may have a significant environmental effect. Thresholds are an analytical
tool for judging significance, and may vary with different project characteristics and
environmental settings.
In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, this EIR relies on
the adopted Master Plan documentation, the environmental threshold standards of the State
CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), and relevant environmental standards of regulatory agencies.
An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based on
specific CEQA policies and/or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be
determined. Each of the significance criteria serves as the basis for the determination
whether a project impact is significant.
•
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant – Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires
that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible
significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not
discussed in detail in the EIR.” Based on the impact significance criteria and supporting data
for a given issue, this section of the environmental analysis includes a determination that the
Project will either have no measurable impact or it will have a potential impact that is less
than significant.
•
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Environmental analysis may determine that the
Proposed Project may have potential impacts (direct, indirect, growth-inducing, short-term,
and/or long-term). Where the analysis in this section demonstrates (without undue
speculation) that the Proposed Project may have a substantial or potentially substantial
adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion
is noted and:
o
Feasible Project-specific mitigation measures are identified that will minimize the
significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels;
and/or
o
Where there are no feasible mitigation measures that can reduce the significant
effect to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one
that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts."
•
Level of Significance after Mitigation – For impacts requiring mitigation, this discussion
summarizes the level of significance of each impact after the mitigation measures are
applied.
•
Cumulative Impacts – Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulative
impacts" as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section
15130(a) of the Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project
when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Section 15130(a) further
provides that " Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is
not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but
shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively
considerable."
Section 15065(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulatively considerable" as
meaning that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.1-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.1 Environmental Analysis
effects of probable future projects.” Guidance regarding the scope of the cumulative impacts
discussion is provided in Section 15130(b)(1), which indicates that an adequate discussion
of significant cumulative impacts must be predicated on either:
1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts, including applicable projects outside the control of the lead agency; or
2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or
certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing
to the cumulative impact.
By their nature, some cumulative effects might vary in their geographic scopes and may
encompass few or none of the related projects. Therefore, each subsequent section of this
environmental analysis identifies the geographic scope of the area of potential cumulative
effects.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.1-4
3.2 T RAFFIC & C IRCULATION
Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) prepared the Traffic Study for the Victor Valley College Master Plan
in the City of Victorville (Traffic Study) in March 2007. The Traffic Study contains evaluations of key
area roadways and intersections, campus parking facilities, and campus access and circulation. It
does not analyze the City's recently proposal to extend Peach Avenue and reconfigure Spring Valley
Parkway just west of the VVC Campus (see Chapter 4.0, Project Alternatives).
3.2.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.2.1.1 Existing Circulation Network
KOA initially evaluated approximately 9 miles of the Bear Valley Road corridor from the I-15 Freeway
to Navajo Road to determine the intersections most influenced by traffic from the College. The initial
evaluation summarized lane configurations, stop controls, and Levels of Service (LOS)1 at 15
intersections, 13 of which were on Bear Valley Road. Figure 3.2-1 illustrates those initial findings.
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
1
FIGURE 3.2-1
EXISTING (2007) AREAWIDE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Level of service (LOS) is a report-card scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at
intersections. LOS ranges from "A" (free flow, little congestion) to "F" (forced flow, extreme congestion). See the
Methodologies section (p. 4) of the Traffic Study for explanation of LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as
well the relationship between LOS and delay criteria for intersections.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
Based on the initial evaluation, KOA and VVC focused the Traffic Study to evaluate site entrances
and intersections that may be affected by the College traffic. The six intersections selected for
analysis are listed below and shown on Figure 3.2-2, along with their roadway geometrics.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 1 (CDC Way)
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd)
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 3
Bear Valley Road at Spring Valley Parkway
Bear Valley Road at Jacaranda Road
Bear Valley Road at Mojave Fish Hatchery Road
FIGURE 3.2-2
TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS & GEOMETRICS
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
The primary roadways serving the College are as follows:
Bear Valley Road is a four to six-lane arterial roadway running on an east/west alignment located
adjacent to and south of the project. West of Apple Valley Road, the roadway provides two to three
travel lanes per direction and is divided by a double-double yellow centerline in the project vicinity.
Bear Valley Road extends west from Bellview Avenue in the community of Pinon Hills to Aster Road.
The speed limit is posted at 45 mph in the project vicinity. Parking is generally not permitted along
most of the roadway. Land uses along the roadway are mostly commercial with some residential and
vacant lots. Bear Valley Road is controlled by traffic signals at Jacaranda Avenue, Spring Valley
Parkway, and numerous other locations. There is a boulevard stop for Mojave Fish Hatchery Road at
Bear Valley Road.
Jacaranda Road is a two to four-lane arterial roadway running on a north/south alignment
intersecting with Bear Valley Road along the College property frontage. The roadway is divided by a
double yellow center line and provides one travel lane per direction to the south of Bear Valley Road
and two travel lanes per direction to the north of Bear Valley Road. Jacaranda Road begins within the
campus at Mojave Fish Hatchery Road and curves south around the campus and turns into ‘E’
Avenue at Eucalyptus Street in the City of Hesperia. The speed limit is posted at 45 mph south of
Bear Valley Road. Parking is generally not permitted along most of the roadway. Land uses along the
roadway are mostly from the College and commercial. Jacaranda Road is controlled by a traffic signal
at Bear Valley Road and currently serves as the main entrance to the College.
Spring Valley Parkway is a two-lane residential collector roadway running on a north/south alignment
located approximately 500 feet west of the project. The roadway provides one travel lane per
direction and is divided by a raised median. Spring Valley Parkway begins at Bear Valley Road and
extends north where it ends at Driftwood Drive. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Parking is
generally permitted along most of the roadway. Land uses along this roadway are primarily
residential. Spring Valley Parkway is controlled by a traffic signal at Bear Valley Road.
Mojave Fish Hatchery Road is a two-lane collector roadway running on a north/south alignment
located within and south of the project site. The roadway provides one travel lane per direction and is
divided by a double yellow centerline to the north of Bear Valley Road and is unmarked south of Bear
Valley Road. Mojave Fish Hatchery Road extends from Bear Valley Road and extends north through
the campus where it turns into Jacaranda Avenue. The speed limit is not posted in the project
vicinity. Parking is generally not permitted along most of the roadway. Land uses along this roadway
are mostly from the College. Mojave Fish Hatchery Road is controlled by boulevard stops at Bear
Valley Road and currently serves as a secondary entrance to the College.
Interstate 15 is the nearest freeway to the project site. It is located approximately 5 miles west of the
project site. It provides regional north/south circulation throughout the State, beginning in San Diego
and continuing past north past the California State border to Las Vegas and beyond. It has 3 lanes
per direction and provides a full interchange with Bear Valley Road.
3.2.1.2 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
KOA collected average daily traffic data and calculated the intersection LOS ratings for 20072 during
the peak hours. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the intersection levels of service.
2
A three percent growth rate was applied to the count data for the intersections of Bear Valley Road at Spring Valley
Parkway, Bear Valley Road at Jacaranda Road, and Bear Valley Road at Fish Hatchery Road to account for growth that
occurred in the area since the counts were taken in late 2005.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 3.2-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING (2007) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS
AM Peak Hour LOS
PM Peak Hour LOS
Average
Poorest
Movement
Average
Poorest
Movement
Spring Valley Pkwy at Driveway 1 (CDC Way)
A
B
A
B
Spring Valley Pkwy at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd)
A
E
A
F
Spring Valley Pkwy at Driveway 3
B
B
B
B
Intersection
Unsignalized Intersections
Signalized Intersections
Average LOS
Average LOS
Mojave Fish Hatchery Rd at Bear Valley Rd
F
F
Spring Valley Pkwy at Bear Valley Rd
B
B
Jacaranda Rd at Bear Valley Road
C
C
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
Most of the study area intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better, except for Spring
Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd) for the poorest movements, and Mojave Fish Hatchery
Road for the average and poorest movements at Bear Valley Road. Since the City of Victorville has
identified the minimum Level of Service as D for City intersections, any LOS decreases at those
intersections would be considered significant.
3.2.1.3 Parking Demand and Supply
Existing Campus enrollment and class attendance do not create parking supply problems for VVC.
Students are able to park on-site and do not need to park in remote parking lots or on neighborhood
streets surrounding the Campus.
The Traffic Study does not include an inventory of existing parking supply. Since no adverse parking
conditions exist, the Traffic Study merely estimates the future parking requirements based on the
City of Victorville's parking standards and provides recommendations to be implemented through the
FMP parking plans.
3.2.1.4 Alternative Transportation
The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) provides bus service for the cities of Adelanto, Hesperia,
and Victorville, the Town of Apple Valley and the County of San Bernardino. Several VVTA bus routes
stop at Victor Valley College, including Route 43 from the Apple Valley Post Office which serves Apple
Valley High School; Route 53 from the Mall at Victor Valley, which operates along Bear Valley Road;
and Route 45 (the section in Victorville only). All three routes meet at VVTA’s key transfer location
(Victor Valley College) at the top and bottom of every hour between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Figure 3.2-3 illustrates the on-Campus bus stops and internal circulation routes. Route maps
showing VVTA bus service for the College are available at http://vvta.org/local.html.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
3.2.2
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
FIGURE 3.2-3
3
VVC CAMPUS EXISTING TRANSIT DIAGRAM
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant transportation/traffic impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
y
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).
y
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
y
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks.
y
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
y
Result in inadequate emergency access.
y
Result in inadequate parking capacity.
y
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
According to the Traffic Study, and based on the City of Victorville's minimum LOS D for City
intersections, impacts are considered significant when traffic conditions are forecast to decline
below the minimum LOS threshold. Impacts will therefore be considered significant when an
increase of one second of delay is indicated at signalized intersection locations forecast for LOS E or
LOS F. Unsignalized intersections are considered to be significantly impacted if the Level of Service
is poor and traffic signals are warranted or delay is increased.
3.2.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
3.2.3.1 Transportation and Circulation Design Features
Parking Demand and Supply
•
The Project would provide adequate parking capacity.
The peak parking demand based on City Code requirements is approximately 4,021 parking stalls for
future students, faculty, and visitors. The Traffic Study found that a rate of one stall per 100 square
feet is more applicable for community college uses for classroom areas. It also recommends using
an office rate of 1 stall per 250 square feet, which is standard in many jurisdictions. Classrooms with
equipment (i.e., construction and auto) are recommended to use 1 stall per 200 square feet. All
other areas on the site will require minimal parking, as they support the classroom uses, and are
therefore recommended to be parked at a rate of 1 stall per 1,000 square feet. This would require a
total site parking supply of 4,000 stalls, according to the Traffic Study, and all parking areas will
comply with accepted design standards for stall and aisle width.
In addition to the number of parking stalls, the Traffic Study also evaluated the location and
accessibility of the proposed parking areas. As stated, "in addition to increasing the number of
parking stalls at the college, the college also needs to evaluate the proposed site plan and it is
recommended that enough parking need to be supplied in the vicinity of each classroom to meet the
needs of students attending class. The site is on a large slope, with the western portion elevated
above the eastern portion. If there is not enough parking at the western locations students might
have the tendency to park along the private residential streets as opposed to parking across
campus and walking a large hill to class."
The FMP Site Plan has taken those locational factors into account in its placement of parking lots
and parking structures. The current parking design provides parking areas that are adequate, easily
accessible to facilities, and have safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Further, as a
Sustainability Guideline strategy, the FMP proposes to use permeable paving surfaces for drives and
parking lots to the extent feasible. No adverse parking capacity impacts would result.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
Emergency Access
y
The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
The project will include internal roadways and will connect to the surrounding street system at three
locations along Spring Valley Parkway and two locations along Bear Valley Road, as shown on the
Campus Master Plan Concept (Figure 2-5). The Bear Valley Road entrances at Fish Hatchery Road
and Jacaranda Road are intended as primary and secondary entrances, respectively. The Traffic
Study determined that traffic signal warrants are met at the intersection of Fish Hatchery Road at
Bear Valley Road.
The three entrances along Spring Valley Parkway would provide adequate width for one inbound and
one outbound lane. The Traffic Study concluded that these three entrances will function adequately
with stop sign control.
The Proposed Project will have no adverse effects on emergency access to the VVC Campus and
surrounding land uses. Ultimate improvements to intersections and roadways, both on- and offCampus will enhance accessibility by emergency responders of all types. As indicated in Section 3.10
(Public Services and Facilities), the placement of the new Fire Station at its new location on Campus
would enhance response times due to its proximity to Spring Valley Parkway and Bear Valley Road.
No adverse impacts will result.
Public Transit
y
The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
The Proposed Project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs of
the College or the Victor Valley Transit Authority. The FMP would Provide attractive waiting areas for
mass transit use, preferred carpool/vanpool parking locations, bicycle storage areas, and
shower/changing facilities for building users.
As previously indicated, there is local bus service serving the Campus and the FMP proposes
roadway and bus stop improvements that will enhance the services already provided. In the event of
construction-related road closures or other service interruptions, the VVTA will continue to issue
Riders Alerts instructing transit users of detours and/or bus stop closures.
In addition to bus stops at the Park and Ride parking structure in the southeast portion of the
Campus, new stops/shelters will be located along Jacaranda Road to the south of their current
location. These stops are integrated with the FMP's ADA paths for accessibility, though separate
transport and drop-off locations are available for seniors and disabled persons through VVTA's Direct
Access paratransit services. Bicycle racks are also located on the Campus.
Air Traffic
y
The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
The nearest airports in Hesperia to the south and Apple Valley to the northeast are both over 7 miles
from the College. There will be no project-related effects on airport activities or air traffic patterns.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2.4
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
TRAFFIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
3.2.4.1 Growth and Trip Generation Assumptions
FMP buildout in the year 2025 is intended to accommodate 14,616 full-time equivalent (FTE) of
enrolled students, including 932,380 square feet of classrooms. There are currently approximately
9,100 students enrolled, so the projected Victor Valley College expansion is closer to 5,600
students; however, there are various other traffic-generating uses on-site so the full 14,616 students
is assumed for expansion in the near-term as well as the long-term. This is to account for the
Excelsior Education Center/high school and other college satellite facilities that reside on the
Campus and that are expected to remain and/or expand in the long-term.
The result of this approach is that Campus development trip generation potential is overestimated in
the near- and long-term, and the College will implement a greater share of the costs of transportation
improvements. It also reveals current deficiencies that might have been underestimated during
initial planning for the College and that can now be remedied proportional to the College's
contribution.
Using those assumptions, the Traffic Study analyzes traffic impacts of the following With-Project
scenarios:
•
Existing With-Project Conditions (Year 2007), which evaluates vehicle trips resulting from
14,616 FTE (VVC enrollment at long-term buildout) added to the 2007 circulation system.3
•
Near-Term With-Project Conditions (Year 2009), which includes traffic improvement
mitigation from the Year 2007 analysis, as well as funded improvements implemented by the
City and/or County.
•
Long-Term With-Project Conditions (Year 2025), which includes traffic improvement
mitigation from the Year 2009 analysis, as well as funded improvements implemented by the
City and/or County.
3.2.4.2 Project Trip Generation and Distribution
To forecast of the number of trips that will be made to or from the VVC Campus, the Traffic Study
uses trip generation rates published in Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on a rate of 1.2 trips per FTE enrolled student, the Project
buildout enrollment of 14,616 FTE will generate a total of 17,539 trips daily, including 1,754 trips
during the AM peak hour and 1,754 trips during the PM peak hour.
As indicated previously, the trips generated from 14,616 FTE were used to model existing conditions
(year 2007) even though enrollment is about 9,100 FTE. The Traffic Study (p. 26) evaluates Existing
With Project Conditions (Year 2007), which documents the effects of full FMP project traffic upon the
existing roadway system a full 10 to 15 years before it would actually occur. Although the Traffic
Study terms that analysis scenario "unrealistic," it is useful in assessing the Project's sole impact
upon the circulation system by identifying mitigation measures that may be needed solely due to the
Project. Since it is "unrealistic" and not a scenario evaluated elsewhere in this EIR, this analysis
focuses only on the potential conditions modeled for years 2009 and 2025, though the Year 2007
mitigation recommendations are incorporated as appropriate.
3
Also includes 6 percent traffic growth assumption at VVC intersections with Bear Valley Road to account for time lapsed
since initial traffic counts were taken in 2005.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
Figure 3.2-4 illustrates the distribution of VVC trips on the street segments in the surrounding area,
while Figures 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 indicate the actual ADT volume increases attributable to the Project.
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
FIGURE 3.2-4
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
3.2.4.3 Traffic Volume Forecasting Methodologies
KOA used the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) RIVSAN model to forecast
traffic volumes based on assumptions for future highway systems and land uses. RIVSAN models
existing development conditions to produce a baseline scenario, and it incorporates the City of
Victorville's future General Plan land use projections.
Based on the output from the RIVSAN modeling, KOA conducted intersection turning movement
evaluations and level of service calculations using the methodology explained in the Traffic Study. To
determine project-related LOS changes in the near- and long-term, KOA conducted an Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU)4 analysis for the following peak hours:
• Weekday A.M. (peak hour between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.)
• Weekday P.M. (peak hour between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.)
4
The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology and modeling assumptions are explained in the Traffic
Study (p. 5)
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
Source: Katz, Okitsu & Associates, 2007
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
FIGURE 3.2-5
PROJECT-RELATED TRIPS (AM PEAK HOUR)
FIGURE 3.2-6
PROJECT-RELATED TRIPS (PM PEAK HOUR)
December 2008
Page 3.2-10
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2.5
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
y
The Project could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections).
y
The Project could exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways.
3.2.5.1 Near-Term Conditions (Year 2009)
Background Conditions Without Project
The City of Victorville has indicated ambient traffic growth in the study area has historically increased
at a rate of about 3 percent per year, and will continue as such in the future. Therefore, the Traffic
Study applied a 3 percent per year growth factor to 2007 traffic volumes and also factored in other
nearby developments that have been approved and will add traffic to the study area intersections.
The 2009 cumulative project assumptions are provided in the Traffic Study.
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Peak hour intersection performance for near-term (2009) conditions is provided in Table 3 of
the Traffic Study. It shows that Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd) will
continue to operate below an acceptable level of service and will worsen to LOS F during the
AM and PM peak hours. The 2007 LOS deficiency at Mojave Fish Hatchery Road and Bear
Valley Road will be remedied by signalization in conjunction with construction of the Park N
Ride facility in the southeast portion of the Campus.5
2009 Conditions With Project
The Traffic Study states that "the project is not scheduled for completion before the end of the year
2009; however, this scenario is representative of conditions in 2009 if the project is fully built out."
As such, this scenario overestimates FMP buildout and places a greater share of the mitigation on
the College.
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Trip generation and distribution would be the same as presented in Figures 3.2-4 through
3.2-6. The Near-Term With Project traffic volumes were derived by adding the project trips to
the future traffic volumes for the year 2009. Table 8 of the Traffic Study summarizes the
results of the level of service analysis and indicates the following intersection deficiencies:
•
•
5
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (AM and PM peak hours)
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road (PM peak hour)
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines do not allow a traffic study to assume that any
non-committed improvements are constructed for the purpose of assessing preliminary impacts. Therefore, only existing
or committed geometries are assumed and this includes the improvements for the intersection of Fish Hatchery Road
and Bear Valley Road (KOA 2007, p. 17), which have received funding approval from various sources, including the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and AB2766 Subvention Fund Program (Caltrans 2003).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-11
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
2009 Mitigation Improvements
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The College shall mitigate the forecast intersection deficiency at
Spring Valley Parkway and Driveway 2 (Francesca Rd) by providing an all-way stop sign or
roundabout in 2009 or as traffic conditions warrant, based upon monitoring by the College
and/or City of Victorville. The College shall maintain these improvements beyond Long-Term
(2025) Campus buildout due to forecast deficiencies in their absence.
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: The College shall mitigate the forecast intersection deficiency at
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road by providing the following interim improvements in
2009 or as traffic conditions warrant, based upon monitoring by the College and/or City of
Victorville:
•
Southbound approach: One left-turn lane, one through lane, and two right-turn lanes
•
Eastbound approach: Two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right-turn
lane
The College shall maintain these improvements beyond Long-Term (2025) Campus buildout
due to forecast deficiencies in their absence.
As shown in Table 3.2-2, the intersections affected by project-related and cumulative traffic will
operate at acceptable levels of service once the mitigation measures are implemented.
TABLE 3.2-2
NEAR-TERM (2009) LEVELS OF SERVICE AFTER PROJECT MITIGATION
Intersection
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2
Average
Poorest Movement
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2
Average
Poorest Movement
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Rd
WITH
Near-Term
Project +
Without
Near-Term
Project
WITH Project Mitigation
(Delay / Level of Service)
8.0 /
84.4 /
A 10.9
/ B 12.1 / B
F >120.0 / F
N/A
(Delay / Level of Service)
Residual
Impact?
No
No
76.5
/ F
>120.0 / F
93.2
/ F
>120.0 / F
14.7 / B
N/A
No
No
39.0
84.0
51.0 / D
No
/ D
/ F
Note: Delay based on seconds per vehicle average. LOS = Level of Service
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-12
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
3.2.5.2 Buildout Conditions (Year 2025)
The Traffic Study defines the buildout year of 2025 as the year of completion of all land uses
designated in the City of Victorville's General Plan, as well completion of the FMP buildout.
Background Conditions Without Project
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
SCAG provided the 2025 buildout forecasts of areawide traffic without project. SCAG and the
City of Victorville subsequently updated those model forecasts with current General Plan and
zoning information. Table 4 of the Traffic Study shows peak hour intersection performance
for General Plan buildout conditions in 2025. It shows that Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway
2 (Francesca Rd) will continue to operate below an acceptable level of service at LOS F
during the PM peak hour.
2025 Conditions With Project
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Trip generation and distribution would be the same as presented in Figures 3.2-4 through
3.2-6. The Long-Term With Project traffic volumes were derived by adding the project trips to
the future traffic volumes for the year 2025. This scenario includes City of Victorville General
Plan buildout traffic volumes and committed transportation improvements. Tables 9 and 12
of the Traffic Study indicate the following intersection deficiencies:
•
•
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2 (AM and PM peak hours)
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Road (PM peak hour)
2025 Final Mitigation Improvements
Table 3.2-3 shows that deficient intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service after
mitigation by the College in 2025, and assuming implementation of other planned circulation
enhancements by the City.
TABLE 3.2-3
LONG-TERM (2025) LEVELS OF SERVICE AFTER PROJECT MITIGATION1
Intersection
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2
Average
Poorest Movement
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Spring Valley Parkway at Driveway 2
Average
Poorest Movement
Jacaranda Road at Bear Valley Rd
WITH
Near-Term
Project +
Without
Near-Term
Project
WITH Project Mitigation1
(Delay / Level of Service)
3.6 /
34.3 /
A 4.9
/ A
12.9 / B
D 47.5
/ E
N/A
(Delay / Level of Service)
Residual
Impact?
No
No
49.6
/ E
>120.0 / F
76.8
/ F
>120.0 / F
14.9 / B
N/A
No
No
48.0
60.0
52.0 / D
No
/ D
/ E
Note: Delay based on seconds per vehicle average. LOS = Level of Service
1 Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-13
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.2 Traffic and Circulation
As shown in Table 3.2-3, the mitigation measures specified in the Traffic Study for year 2025 are the
same as those specified for year 2009. In effect, the Traffic Study assumes no mitigation
improvement carryover from the Near-Term (2009) scenario to the Long-Term (2025) scenario.
Therefore, as long as Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 are implemented in the Near-Term and
maintained beyond the year 2025, no new measures would be necessary to reduce the effects of
Campus-related traffic.
3.2.5.3 Campus Circulation and Traffic Safety
•
The Project could increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
The Traffic Study notes that the Bear Valley Road/Jacaranda Road intersection improvements are
also necessary because that entrance needs to allow for all turns for vehicles wishing to enter and
exit the Campus. If the connector is left in its current condition and is not long enough, vehicles
wishing to turn left or right out of the site will back up onto Jacaranda Road, or onto Bear Valley Road
for those wanting to turn right onto Jacaranda Road. Without an extended connector between Bear
Valley Parkway and Jacaranda Road, the potentially heavy queue of vehicles along both roads could
cause safety hazards. Therefore, the following mitigation will apply:
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Prior to approving or implementing long-term improvements at the
Jacaranda Road/Bear Valley Road intersection, the College shall obtain the services of a
qualified traffic engineer to evaluate traffic queuing and related safety hazards and to
provide traffic engineering recommendations to avoid such circumstances, including but not
limited to land use and road design modifications to the Facilities Master Plan site plan.
Evidence of such consultation shall be provided to the City of Victorville Traffic Engineer in
the form of a mitigation plan demonstrating mitigated queue lengths, either with or without
extending the connector road between Bear Valley Parkway and Jacaranda Road.
3.2.6
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
After mitigation, the Proposed Project will not result in significant adverse impacts on traffic and
circulation, including parking capacity and traffic safety. As indicated previously, the Traffic Study
does not evaluate the operational effects of the City's proposal to extend Peach Avenue and
reconfigure Spring Valley Parkway west of the VVC Campus. The City's road project could modify or
eliminate the need for some of the Traffic Study mitigation and the issue will be further considered
by the College and the City during FMP project planning and traffic performance monitoring.
3.2.7
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Each of the traffic and circulation effects evaluated in the preceding sections assumed projectrelated traffic plus cumulative project traffic. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the
Project would not individually contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.2-14
3.3 A IR Q UALITY
Synectecology prepared a Focused Air Quality Study (AQS) in July 2008 analyzing the construction
and operational effects of FMP implementation. The AQS was prepared in accordance with the
methodologies provided by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) in its
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines (June 2007).
Appendix B includes the AQS and the results of project-related emissions modeling. Following is a
summary of the major findings and recommendations. Appendix B should be consulted for technical
descriptions, modeling methodologies, and detailed air quality data.
3.3.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.3.1.1 Air Quality Planning and Regulation
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act regulate air quality in the nation and the
State, respectively. Both the State of California and the federal government have established healthbased Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for certain air pollutants. The AAQS are the levels of air
quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.
They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory
distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other
disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate
occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards
before adverse effects are observed.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1971 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution
species. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and regional air quality districts monitor and
regulate statewide air emissions for compliance with both the California AAQS (CAAQS) and the
NAAQS, which have been developed for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix B, these
pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate
matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen
sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the
health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
Along with primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode
criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These
criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants, which
actually threaten public health.
In the case of the MDAB and the project area, localized health effects are generally determined by
compliance with the AAQS, which are a function of factors such as climate/meteorology, local
pollutant sources and types, and locations of receptor populations. These factors are further
discussed in the following sections.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
Regional Air Quality Management
The project is located in the City of Victorville, which is within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB)
and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District (MDAQMD) under the auspices of CARB. The MDAB encompasses approximately 21,480
square miles and includes the desert portions of San Bernardino County, Palo Verde Valley, and the
Antelope Valley. The MDAB is bordered by the South Coast Air Basin to the southwest, the Salton Sea
Air Basin to the south, the Great Basin Unified Air Basin to the north, and the Arizona and Nevada
borders to the east.
3.3.1.2 Climate/Meteorology
The MDAB is characterized by a dry, hot desert climate. The intervening mountain ranges block cool,
moist coastal air and create hot, dry summers and cool winters. On average, 20 to 30 frontal
systems move into the MDAB each winter, although only a few of these produce measurable
precipitation. In summer, the area is primarily influenced by a Pacific subtropical high-pressure
system that sits off the coast blocking cloud formation and encouraging daytime solar heating. The
project area experiences an average of about 350 days of sunshine per year with winter
temperatures dipping into the low 20s to high 70s, and summer temperatures ranging from the low
40s through 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Prevailing winds blow primarily to the east and average 8.8
miles per hour as measured at George Air Force Base to the northwest.
Air quality in the MDAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of
Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during
prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. However, the inversion conditions in the MDAB
are not particularly favorable for the build-up of high ozone concentrations. When inversions occur,
they are generally 6,000 to 8,000 feet above the desert surface, allowing much greater vertical
mixing than along the coast where the inversion base is much lower. As a result, meteorology in the
MDAB is less favorable for the chemical mixing characteristic of typical ozone formation than the
coastal areas of Southern California.
The MDAB experiences high prevailing winds primarily from the southwest and west. As a result,
smog is transported from the SCAB through mountain passes to the MDAB. The exchange of lower
and upper air tends to accelerate surface winds during the warm part of the day when convection is
at a minimum. During the winter, the rapid cooling of the surface layers at night retards this
exchange of momentum, which often results in calm conditions and increased pollutant
concentrations.
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable.
The total average annual precipitation for the Twentynine Palms area to the southeast is 3.95
inches, and the majority of precipitation occurs between December and March.
3.3.1.3 Sources and Types of Air Pollution
Mobile and Stationary Sources
The quality of the ambient air is affected by pollutants emitted into the air from stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and
area sources. Point sources consist of one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified
location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processing plants. Area
sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions,
and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are a combination of emissions
from automobiles, trucks, and indirect sources. Indirect sources are sources that by themselves may
not emit air contaminants; however, they indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by
attracting vehicle trips or consuming energy. Examples of indirect sources include an office complex
or commercial center that generates commuter trips and consumes energy resources through the
use of electricity for lighting and space heating. Indirect sources also include actions proposed by
local governments, such as redevelopment districts and private projects involving the development
of either large buildings or tracts. In addition, indirect sources include those emissions created by
the distance vehicles travel. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains and self-propelled
construction equipment.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The regulated air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are known
as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air
pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and most fine particulate matter (PM10,
PM2.5), including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust, are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO2, PM10, and
PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form
secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere.
Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Following is a summary
of each of these primary and secondary criteria air pollutants, including their sources in the project
area and their known health effects.
•
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion
of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect
associated with CO is the interference of normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may
result in tissue oxygen deprivation.
•
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen
and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of
hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions associated with the
use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household
consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused
directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form secondary pollutants.
•
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog
production. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO
is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion
takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating
gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOx acts as an acute respiratory irritant
and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens.
•
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of NO2
produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and
NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is
more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially
irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary
fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been
observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the
result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 also contributes to
the formation of PM10 (particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or
0.0004 inch or less in diameter).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
•
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of
sulfurous fossil fuels. Fuel combustion is the primary source of SO2. At sufficiently high
concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and
when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.
•
Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust,
aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate are now recognized. Course
particles, or PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of 10 microns (i.e., ten one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine
particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a
meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily
from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action
on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Both
PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those
people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems.
•
Fugitive Dust poses primarily two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that
of respiratory problems attributable to the suspended particulates in the air. The second
concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind
conditions. Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong
windstorms by acting as an abrasive material agent (much like sandblasting activities).
Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures
and vehicles.
•
Ozone (O3) is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed
when reactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx (both byproducts of the internal
combustion engine) react with sunlight. Ozone is present in relatively high concentrations in
the MDAB, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the
concentrations of ozone. Ozone may pose a health threat to those who already suffer from
respiratory diseases as well as healthy people. Additionally, ozone has been tied to crop
damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and pre-mature death. Ozone can also act as
a corrosive resulting in property damage such as the embitterment of rubber products.
Other general effects of air pollution are described in Appendix B.
3.3.1.4 Baseline Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are
documented by MDAQMD using the monitoring station located at 14306 Park Avenue in Victorville,
approximately four miles northwest of the Project Site. Data from that station (see Table 4 of
Appendix B) indicate the following:
•
Ozone levels continue to exceed the California and national standards. While levels are
reduced from the past, no clear trends are evident.
•
The state PM10 particulate standards were violated three times in 2003, twice in 2006, and
four times in 2007.
•
PM2.5 has not exceeded federal limits (federal) in the last 5 years. However, the allowable
state average was exceeded in 2003 and 2004.
•
CO and NO2 levels monitored in Victorville have not exceeded their applicable standards in
the last 5 years.
Based on similar data from throughout the MDAB, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and CARB have designated portions of the District as non-attainment for ozone and
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
particulate matter as shown in Table 2 of Appendix B. To bring the area into compliance with the
applicable air quality standards, the District has adopted a variety of attainment plans for ozone and
particulate matter. The current plans applicable to the project area are noted in Table 3 of Appendix
B.
An outcome of continued non-attainment has been the authorization of the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA). Reauthorized in 2005, CMAQ funds to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies to invest
in projects that reduce criteria air pollutants regulated from transportation-related sources over a
period of five years (2005-2009). Funds are distributed based on an area's population by county and
the severity of its ozone and carbon monoxide problems within the nonattainment or maintenance
area. Locally, the CMAQ program is one source of funds for Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
employed on and near the College for the purposes of reducing congestion and improving air quality.
Funded TCMs include the Victor Valley College Transfer Point Facility, as well as signalization and
other improvements for the intersection of Mojave Fish Hatchery Road and Bear Valley Road, which
will tie into other signals on Bear Valley Road when constructed as part of the College's Park And
Ride project. When completed, those improvements are estimated to provide the following emissions
reductions (Caltrans 2003):
reduction in lbs/day
reduction in tons/year
ROG
NOX
CO
PM10
10.1
1.9
21.6
3.9
94.1
17.2
15.7
2.9
ROG and NOx are targeted since they are criteria pollutant precursors that go on to form ozone
through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere.
3.3.1.5 Local Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of
population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the
acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases.
The project is to be located at the site of an existing campus. The College and on-campus high school
and childcare facilities are considered sensitive land uses as they include students and children
engaged in outdoor physical activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive
to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on
respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can
detract from the enjoyment of recreation.
Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including
children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained
exposure to any pollutants present. The nearest residents are located to the north of the campus, to
the south across Bear Valley Road, to the east across the Mojave River, and to the west along Spring
Valley Parkway.
Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods
are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the
time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
3.3.1.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It is commonly understood today that certain gases can accumulate in the atmosphere and decrease
the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, potentially contributing to the
warming of the earth’s climate much like the interior of a greenhouse. These gases are often
referred to as “greenhouse gases” or “GHG.” The primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.
Over time, increases in the earth’s temperature could result in significant climate change effects
such as raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns, and changing water supplies and crop
yields. Global warming could also affect human health, wildlife, and ecosystems.
The general scientific consensus is that increased concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere can
contribute to global warming, although there is disagreement and uncertainty concerning either the
likely magnitude of the GHG contribution or the degree of potential warming that would be due to
GHG, rather than natural forces. Higher atmospheric temperatures could also result in more
emissions of certain pollutants, and increased smog levels and the associated health impacts. While
the possible outcomes and feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood, and much more
research remains to be done, many members of the scientific community believe there is a potential
for significant environmental, social, and economic consequences from world-wide, cumulative GHG
emissions contributing to global warming over the long term.
California has undertaken a role in addressing global warming and GHG emissions. In June 2005,
the Governor signed Executive Order #S-3-05 which established the following greenhouse gas
reduction targets:
•
By 2010, reduce greenhouse emissions state-wide to 2000 emission levels
•
By 2020, reduce greenhouse emissions state-wide to 1990 emission levels
•
By 2050, reduce greenhouse gases state-wide to 80% below 1990 levels
The target for 2020 was recently codified into the State law through the adoption of AB 32.1 The
emission levels in California were estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990,
473 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010,
and 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. AB 32’s goals for emission reductions were
estimated to be approximately 59 and 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2010 and 2020,
respectively. Achieving AB 32’s targets would require significant development and implementation of
energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In
addition to reducing GHG emissions, such strategies would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria
pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion.
Establishing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order
S-1-07 on January 18, 2007, which mandates that by 2020, fuel providers (including refiners,
blenders, producers, and importers) must reduce their average carbon intensity by 10 percent. This
reduction is expected to result in replacement of 20 percent of on-road gasoline consumption with
lower-carbon fuels and lead to the addition of seven million alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles on
California roads.
1
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Health & Safety Code §38500 et seq.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3.2
3.3 Air Quality
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
3.3.2.1 CEQA Evaluation Criteria
The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an air quality perspective, that a project would normally be
judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were
to:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
• 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
standards.
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” is
defined to mean “that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.”
3.3.2.2 Regional Emission Standards and Analysis Methodology
To determine whether the proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the
types and levels of emissions generated are examined among the factors that affect air quality. To
assist VVCCD in determining project significance, the MDAQMD has established air pollution
thresholds against which the project has been evaluated. If the Proposed Project exceeds those
thresholds, then the effects are considered significant. The MDAQMD recently set threshold
limitations in their CEQA and Federal Conformity Guidelines (June 2007), as follows:
•
•
137 pounds per day / 25 tons per year of ROG
137 pounds per day / 25 tons per year of NOx
•
548 pounds per day / 100 tons per year of CO
82 pounds per day / 15 tons per year of PM10
•
137 pounds per day / 25 tons per year of SOx
•
In accordance with the MDAQMD Guidelines, emissions sources that last less than a year, such as
construction, are compared with the daily values, whereas those emissions sources that extend
beyond one year are compared with the yearly values.
The MDAQMD Guidelines also indicate that a project may be significant if it:
•
Were to generate a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local
background concentration.
•
Does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plans, or
•
Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including those resulting
in a cancer risk greater than or equal to 10 in a million and/or a Hazard Index (noncancerous) greater than or equal to 1.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
The MDAQMD Guidelines note that these thresholds are not applicable to all projects and most
projects only need meet the daily/yearly threshold values discussed above for a finding of less than
significant.
3.3.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Project Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
•
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
Under the proposed Facilities Master Plan, the campus would be expanded to include approximately
932,380 square feet, which is an increase of about 589,018 square feet of assignable space. The
College is intended to absorb local growth and would not involve growth-inducing impacts or cause
an exceedance of established population or growth projections. As such, the project is consistent
with the goals of the MDAQMD 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan as well as the Mojave Desert Planning
Area PM10 Plan and in this respect does not present a significant impact. With regard to the Project's
potential to cumulatively affect a criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an
ambient air quality standard, see Section 3.3.6 (Cumulative Impacts).
Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Long-Term Microscale Effects (Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots)
•
The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant
concentrations.
An impact is potentially significant if emission levels exceed the State or federal ambient air
quality standards at any sensitive receptor locations. Because CO is produced in greatest
quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere,
adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of
localized CO concentrations.
Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO are called "hot
spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the State2 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or
the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because traffic congestion is highest at intersections where
vehicles queue and are subject to reduced speeds, these hot spots are typically produced at
intersection locations. Typically, the level of service (LOS) at an intersection producing a hot
spot is at LOS D or worse during the peak hour. The Traffic Study reports that if the Project
were to be fully operational in 2009, the intersection of Jacaranda Road and Bear Valley
Road would operate at LOS D during the a.m. peak and LOS F during the p.m. peak.
Additionally, the intersection of Spring Valley Parkway and Driveway #2 would operate at LOS
F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
In the Year 2025, the intersection of Jacaranda Road and Bear Valley Road would operate at
LOS D during the a.m. peak and LOS E during the p.m. peak. Additionally, the intersection of
Mojave Fish Hatchery Road and Bear Valley Road would operate at LOS D during both the
a.m. and p.m. peaks hours. Finally, the intersection of Spring Valley Parkway and Driveway
#2 would operate at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during and p.m. peak hour.
2
The federal CO standards for 1- and 8-hour sampling periods are 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance
condition will occur based on the more restrictive State standards prior to exceedance of the federal standards.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
To evaluate the potential for hot spots, a CO analysis was performed using the Caltrans
CALINE4 Distribution Model, including the methodology provided in the Caltrans
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (revised December 1997).
Intersection movements are based on data included in the Traffic Study and modeling was
performed using Year 2009 and 2025 winter emission factors applicable to the Mojave
Desert Air Basin. As a reasonable worst-case, the analysis assumes the existing intersection
alignments and does not consider any mitigation measures as may be outlined in the traffic
analysis to improve traffic flow through the project area. Results of the modeling are included
in Table 3.3-1. Note that all predicted values are below the State’s 1- and 8-hour standards
and any potential impact is less than significant. Therefore, the project would not have a
significant impact on local air quality or result in exposure of sensitive receptors to
unhealthful concentrations of CO. The modeling methodology and computer output are
included in Appendix B.
TABLE 3.3-1
CARBON MONOXIDE MICROSCALE ANALYSIS1
Intersection
Year 2009
Jacaranda Road @ Bear Valley Road (a.m.)
Jacaranda Road @ Bear Valley Road (p.m.)
Spring Valley Parkway @ Driveway #2 (a.m.)
Spring Valley Parkway @ Driveway #2 (p.m.)
Year 2025
Jacaranda Road @ Bear Valley Road (a.m.)
Jacaranda Road @ Bear Valley Road (p.m.)
Mojave Fish Hatchery Rd @ Bear Valley Road (a.m.)
Mojave Fish Hatchery Rd @ Bear Valley Road (p.m.)
Spring Valley Parkway @ Driveway #2 (a.m.)
Spring Valley Parkway @ Driveway #2 (p.m.)
LOS
Peak Hour
Volume
1-Hour
Conc.
(ppm)
8-Hour
Conc.
(ppm)
D
F
F
F
6,211
7,238
1,503
1,650
7.7
8.8
4.0
4.1
5.4
6.1
2.8
2.9
D
E
D
D
E
F
7,201
7,938
6,705
7,153
1,388
1,715
4.0
5.1
4.2
4.0
2.7
2.8
2.8
3.6
2.9
2.8
1.6
1.7
1 As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value. CO values
include background concentrations of 2.3 and 1.6 ppm for 1- and 8-hour concentrations. One-hour concentration is
based on a persistence factor of 0.7 for the 8-hour concentration.
Odors
•
The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Odors can
present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Although
offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can cause agitation, anger and concern to
the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is
sensed longer than the duration of a human breath – typically 2 to 5 seconds.
The only potential odors associated with the project are from the application of paint and
asphalt during the construction period. These odors, if perceptible, are common in the
environment and would be of very limited duration. Therefore, any odor impacts would not be
considered as significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3.4
3.3 Air Quality
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The AQS assumed that demolition and construction activities would take place over four phases,
each with an estimated duration of about 4 years, for a total FMP implementation period of 16 years.
Full implementation would entail demolition of approximately 279,000 square feet of enclosed
structures and approximately 2,044,370 square feet (46.9 acres) of existing asphalt and concrete
paving materials. Construction over the same period would entail the installation of approximately
1.36 million square feet of new structures; 1.9 million square feet (43.7 acres) of asphalt; 503,000
square feet (11.6 acres) of concrete; and 262,250 square feet (6.0 acres) of sports fields. Note that
the square footage to be constructed differs from the “assignable space” used in the calculation of
emissions associated with the operation of these structures.
Table 5 of Appendix B outlines the demolition and construction phasing and quantities used in the
air quality analysis. Both construction and operational emissions were calculated using the Urban
Emissions model (URBEMIS2007, Version 9.2.4). The URBEMIS model uses EMFAC2007 emissions
factors for vehicle traffic and Offroad2007 emissions projections for construction equipment.
Equipment use and timing for the construction effort are based on model default values except
where noted in Appendix B.
3.3.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts
•
The Project would temporarily violate an air quality standard, but would not contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation, and construction activities required to
implement the proposed land uses. On-site demolition includes the removal of existing concrete and
asphalt paving. Fine grading and surface preparation would follow demolition, while utility trenching,
paving, building construction, and the application of paints and coatings would occur later in the
construction schedule.
Major sources of emissions during construction include exhaust emissions generated by heavy
equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during
demolition and grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving
and painting of the structures.
Appendix B specifies the detailed model assumptions used to calculate construction emissions. In
general, each phase of construction could take about 4 years and the model evaluates the average
construction area during each 4-year-period. While all 4 phases will include demolition, fine grading,
utility trenching and paving activities, only the latter 3 phases will include building construction and
the application of paints and coatings. Table 6 of Appendix B shows the estimated construction
schedule by phase, activity, and the year that emissions first occur.
Particulate Matter
Demolition, fine grading and surface preparation, utility trenching, and building construction are the
primary particulate-generating activities that will occur during one or more phases of FMP
implementation. Suspended particulate matter (both total suspended particulates [TSP] and PM10) is
a mixture of natural and manmade materials that include soil particles, biological materials, sulfates,
nitrates, organic compounds and lead. Smaller particles (PM10) are created by the combustion of
fossil fuels, but are also given off from tire wear and brake dust. Disturbance of the earth raises
fugitive dust, as does demolition and handling of existing concrete and asphalt paving. Additionally,
the action of tires on the road “kicks-up” entrained road dust adding substantially to the PM10
loading.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-10
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
All projects constructed in the MDAB are subject to MDAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). MDAQMD
Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather sets forth general
and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the
MDAB. The general requirement prohibits projects from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive
dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains
visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. MDAQMD Rule 403 also
prohibits construction sites from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property
line of more than 100 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM10 high-volume
sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific
measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented.
In addition to being located within the MDAB and subject to Rule 403, the project is located within
the Mojave Desert Planning Area (MDPA), subjecting it to MDAQMD Rule 403.2 (Fugitive Dust Control
for The Mojave Desert Planning Area). Projects located in the MDPA between 0.5 and 100 acres in
size are subject to the following measures:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use periodic watering for short-term stabilization of disturbed surface areas to minimize
visible fugitive dust emissions. For purposes of this Rule, use of a water truck to maintain
moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes shall be
considered sufficient to maintain compliance,
Take actions sufficient to prevent project-related track out onto paved surfaces,
Cover loaded haul vehicles while operating on publicly maintained paved surfaces,
Stabilize graded site surfaces upon completion of grading when subsequent development is
delayed or expected to be delayed more than thirty days, except when such a delay is due to
precipitation that dampens the disturbed surface sufficiently to eliminate visible fugitive dust
emissions,
Cleanup project-related track out or spills on publicly maintained paved surfaces within 24
hours, and
Reduce non-essential earth-moving activity under high wind conditions (i.e., the
instantaneous wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour, or when the average wind speed is
greater than 15 miles per hour). For purposes of this Rule, a reduction in earth-moving
activity when visible dusting occurs from moist and dry surfaces due to wind erosion shall be
considered sufficient to maintain compliance.
Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as such, does not denote mitigation under CEQA. The
included AQS analysis assumes the use of the minimal measures specified in Rule 403 that overlap
between the Rule and the URBEMIS model. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
Soil stabilizers shall be applied to all disturbed, inactive areas,
Ground cover shall be quickly applied in all disturbed areas,
The active construction site shall be watered twice daily,
Soil transfer shall be controlled with water spray, and
Unpaved haul roads shall be watered twice daily.
Further, in an effort to reduce airborne diesel pollution, the California Air Resources Board adopted a
"no idling" rule for in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles, limiting idling for such vehicles to no more
than 5 minutes. The new rule went into effect go into effect June 16, 2008. This rule adds to a host
of other off-road diesel-fueled vehicle regulations to reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria
pollutant emissions. Implementation of those Standard Conditions will ensure that PM10 levels are
maintained at levels that are less than significant.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-11
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
Reactive Organic Compounds
Paints and surface coatings are applied in the last stages of construction, and periodically for
maintenance purposes. Such activities release volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which also form
ROG and are assessed as such.
Table 7 in Appendix B details the daily emissions projected for site construction, both on a daily and
yearly basis. Table 3.3-2 below provides a summary of those emissions and their significance levels
by phase, which accounts for overlapping construction activities and their related emissions. As
indicated, the ROG emissions associated with the use of paints and coatings could exceed the daily
threshold and the impact is considered potentially significant. However, given the relatively short
activity duration, the yearly threshold would not be exceeded for this or any other pollutant species.
Mitigation for the daily exceedance follows Table 3.3-2.
TABLE 3.3-2
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS BY PHASE
Source
ROG
Demolition Totals
Fine Grading Totals
Trenching Totals
Asphalt Totals
Daily Emissions (Lbs/Day)
MDAQMD Daily Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
Yearly Emissions (Tons/Year)
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
8.42
3.22
2.22
3.30
17.16
137
No
0.56
25
No
Demolition Totals
Fine Grading Totals
Trenching Totals
Asphalt Totals
Building Totals
Coating Totals
Daily Emissions (Lbs/Day)
MDAQMD Daily Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
Yearly Emissions (Tons/Year)
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
2.40
2.58
1.75
3.04
1.08
59.27
70.12
137
No
0.77
25
No
Demolition Totals
Fine Grading Totals
Trenching Totals
Asphalt Totals
Building Totals
Coating Totals
Daily Emissions (Lbs/Day)
2.26
2.05
1.33
3.26
0.81
43.60
53.31
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Pollutants (pounds/day)
NOx
CO
SO2 PM10
Phase 1, 2009
67.73 39.24 0.01 14.93
26.53 14.18 0.00 2.36
18.97
9.52
0.00 0.94
18.39 12.18 0.00 1.54
131.62 75.12 0.01 19.77
137
548
137
82
No
No
No
No
4.37
2.46
0.00 0.64
25
100
25
15
No
No
No
No
Phase 2, 2013
19.32 12.96 0.01 10.29
20.61 11.97 0.00 2.40
14.17
8.84
0.00 0.70
15.64 11.37 0.00 1.26
7.88
7.94
0.00 0.49
0.03
0.60
0.00 0.00
77.65 53.68 0.01 15.14
137
548
137
82
No
No
No
No
1.27
1.06
0.00 0.16
25
100
25
15
No
No
No
No
Phase 3, 2017
19.12 13.25 0.03 23.69
14.72 10.43
0.0
1.63
9.17
8.44
0.00 0.42
14.03 11.88 0.01 1.04
5.31
7.27
0.01 0.31
0.02
0.32
0.00 0.01
62.37 51.59 0.05 27.1
PM2.5
CO2
5.98
1.45
0.87
1.40
9.7
NT1
No
0.31
NT1
No
8,223.35
2,371.36
1,838.68
1,698.53
14,131.92
NT
No
459.73
NT
No
2.95
1.21
0.64
1.13
0.43
0.00
6.36
NT1
No
0.09
NT1
No
2,923.59
2,370.89
1,961.78
1,898.02
1,444.44
85.48
10,684.2
NT
No
200.42
NT
No
5.59
1.03
0.39
0.93
0.27
0.0
8.21
4,826.9
123.66
1,960.71
2,343.41
1,533.53
62.59
10,850.8
December 2008
Page 3.3-12
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Pollutants (pounds/day)
Source
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2 PM10
MDAQMD Daily Threshold
137
137
548
137
82
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
Yearly Emissions (Tons/Year)
0.58
0.93
0.97
0.00 0.24
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
25
25
100
25
15
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
Phase 4, 2021
Demolition Totals
0.57
3.96
4.43
0.00 1.17
Fine Grading Totals
1.68
11.18
9.52
0.00 7.00
Trenching Totals
1.05
6.20
8.11
0.00 0.30
Asphalt Totals
1.95
9.17
9.42
0.00 0.66
Building Totals
1.67
9.19
15.31 0.02 0.59
Coating Totals
247.782 0.05
1.02
0.00 0.03
Daily Emissions (Lbs/Day)
254.7 39.75 47.81 0.02 9.75
MDAQMD Daily Threshold
137
137
548
137
82
Exceeds Threshold?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yearly Emissions (Tons/Year)
2.66
1.06
1.58
0.00 0.17
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
25
25
100
25
15
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
3.3 Air Quality
PM2.5
NT1
No
0.09
NT1
No
CO2
NT
No
190.28
NT
No
0.01
1.82
0.27
0.60
0.48
0.02
3.2
NT1
No
0.07
NT1
No
958.28
2,369.32
1,836.64
1,806.65
4,138.48
352.78
11,462.15
NT
No
416.24
NT
No
NT = No Threshold currently established by MDAQMD
1 No separate threshold since PM2.5 is a component of PM10, which is subject to a threshold.
2 Shaded values represent a potentially significant impact.
Impact 3.3-1: Construction activities could exceed the daily threshold value for ROG, primarily
associated with the use of paints and coatings, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: During construction, the College shall specify in bid and
construction documents that the contractor(s) shall use paints/coatings containing no more
than 0.22 pound/gallon (100 gram/liter) VOC. The College shall also abide by any other
measures specified by the MDAQMD for the reduction of ROG.
The ROG value of 247.78 pounds per day for architectural coatings included in Table 7 is based on
the use of coatings with a content of 250 grams per liter of ROG as projected by the URBEMIS model
for architectural coatings on non-residential structures. SCAQMD Rule 1113 specifies a limitation of
100 grams per liter for residential coatings. While the project is not within the SCAQMD jurisdiction,
this SCAQMD requirement demonstrates that these reduced VOC coatings are readily available
throughout the Southland (even if the College were to use "residential" coatings), so the mitigation is
reasonable and feasible.
The requirement that the coatings not contain more than 100 grams per liter would reduce these
emissions by 60 percent, (i.e., 100 - (100 x 100 gram/liter ÷ 250 grams/liter)). This could reduce the
ROG emissions associated with these coatings from 247.78 to 99.10 pounds per day and when
combined with ROG emissions from vehicle travel the resultant value is 99.12 pounds per day. This
value is less than the daily threshold of 137 pounds and the impact is reduced to less than
significant after mitigation.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-13
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
3.3.4.2 Long-Term Operational Impacts
•
The Project has the potential to violate an air quality standard, but would not contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Operational emissions center on mobile sources, specifically those vehicular trips generated from
the operation of the College. To a lesser extent, operational emissions also result from on-site
stationary sources such as natural gas combustion to meet facilities heating demands, landscape
maintenance equipment, and periodic maintenance of the structures’ painted surfaces. Stationarysource emissions generally contribute an insignificant amount to total operational emissions when
compared to mobile-source emissions, which would be the largest source of pollutants resulting from
project implementation.
Mobile Source Emissions
The FMP calls for a total of 14,616 full-time equivalent students with about 932,380 square feet of
structure. This represents an increase of approximately 5,516 students and 589,018 square feet of
usable structure. Also included in the project is a 5-megawatt wind turbine and solar energy research
field to be included in Phase 4 of construction. The Traffic Study by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (2007)
estimates that 14,616 students would generate approximately 17,539 average daily trips (ADT). Of
these values, approximately 9,100 students are associated with the existing campus and these
existing students generate approximately 10,920 ADT. Thus, the incremental addition of 5,516
students would result in another 6,619 ADT over existing conditions.
Operational emissions generated by the proposed project were estimated using URBEMIS2007, a
modeling program that estimates emissions generated by land use projects. Model input was
derived from the Traffic Study, which is summarized in Section 3.2 (Traffic and Circulation). The
Traffic Study examined a "worst-case" scenario where the full trip generation impact of 14,616
students was applied to the 2009 transportation system, essentially compressing the multi-year FMP
program into a single year. Though unrealistic, that traffic analysis methodology was appropriate for
assessing near-term circulation system performance and highlighting operational deficiencies.
Similar to the Traffic Study, Table 3.3-3 presents the project-related emissions for two scenarios: 1)
fully operational FMP buildout in year 2009, and 2) horizon year 2025 phased FMP buildout. In
accordance with the MDAQMD Guidelines, the emissions are presented in tons per year because
project operation represents a long-term commitment. To determine the potential for significant
regional impacts, the calculated emissions were compared to the MDAQMD emissions thresholds.
Assuming that the Campus could be built out in the year 2009, both CO and PM10 emissions would
exceed their respective criteria values, resulting in a potentially significant impact. In actuality,
however, the project would not be complete in the year 2009 and students would be added gradually
as capacity increases. Therefore, the AQS also evaluated the emissions impact associated with the
incremental addition of 5,516 students and 589,018 assignable square feet of building space
through the horizon year 2025. Table 3.3-3 shows that when build-out year 2025 is considered, CO
emissions are no longer significant. That is because CO emissions from vehicle exhaust are declining
faster than vehicles are being added to the road and the yearly volume of CO emissions is likely to be
well under the 100 ton per year threshold value. However, PM10 emissions would still exceed the
MDAQMD criterion, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Project-related PM10 (and PM2.5
component) is composed of vehicle exhaust, clutch and brake dust, and entrained road dust that is
“kicked-up” by the tires as the vehicle moves along the roadway.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-14
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
TABLE 3.3-3
YEARLY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Year 2009
Mobile Sources
Natural Gas
Landscape Maintenance
Architectural Coatings
Operational Total
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
Year 2025
Mobile Sources
Natural Gas
Landscape Maintenance
Architectural Coatings
Operational Total
MDAQMD Yearly Threshold
Exceeds Threshold?
ROG
NOx
Pollutants (tons/year)
CO
SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CO2
12.23
0.08
0.02
0.63
12.96
25
No
20.52 136.60 0.11 19.21
1.04
0.87 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.29 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
21.56 137.76 0.11 19.21
25
100
25
15
No
Yes
No
Yes
3.91 11,379.63
0.00 1,246.96
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
3.91 12,627.09
NT
NT
No
No
4.89
0.08
0.02
0.63
5.62
25
No
5.54
1.04
0.00
0.00
6.58
25
No
3.70 11,409.97
0.00 1,246.96
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
3.70 12,657.43
NT
NT
No
No
46.68
0.87
0.29
0.00
47.84
100
No
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
25
No
18.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.98
15
Yes
NT – No Threshold.
The AQS indicates that mitigation is warranted to reduce these emissions to the extent feasible.
Because the majority of these emissions are created from mobile sources miles away from the
College (and most notably dust kicked up by vehicle tires) over which the College has no control, the
AQS prescribes on-site measures to be incorporated into the project design as a means of reducing
vehicular trips to the extent feasible. Those measures are summarized in the following mitigation
measure.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The College shall evaluate each phase of FMP development to ensure
that the following design measures are applied:
•
To encourage the use of mass transportation on an “every day” basis, the College shall
place bus stop shelters at any bus stops situated or to be situated along any site
frontage routes if not already so equipped.
•
To encourage the use of localized commercial facilities and reduce the need for vehicle
travel, the College shall include both bike lanes (where feasible) and bike paths between
the existing adjacent residential and commercial development areas. Additionally, the
College shall provide sidewalks and walking paths to the commercial area to the
southwest as well as the adjacent open space areas to the northeast.
•
If not already in effect, the College shall establish a service and/or newsletter/flyer that
will promote the benefits of ride sharing and include a sign-up so that riders may contact
each other to carpool.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-15
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
While mobile source emissions present the greatest source of impact, all emissions add to the
cumulative total and further mitigation is warranted to reduce stationary source emissions as well.
The AQS prescribes the following:
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: The College shall evaluate each phase of FMP development to ensure
that the following design measures are applied:
•
The College shall specify the use of energy efficient construction no less than 5 percent
beyond Title 24 requirements.
•
The College shall specify the installation of Energy Star-certified (or equivalent) efficient
lighting, air conditioning, water heaters, and appliances where applicable.
•
The College shall specify the installation of energy efficient street, parking area, and field
lighting.
•
The College shall specify that all fixtures used for lighting of interior classrooms and
offices and exterior common areas shall be regulated by automatic devices to turn off
lights when they are not needed while retaining a minimum level of lighting for safety.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts for all emissions will be
reduced. However, reductions would be on the order of only a few percent and PM10 emissions
associated with site occupancy are expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
3.3.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
As indicated above, mitigation measures can reduce all emissions – most to levels that are less than
significant. However, PM10 emissions associated with long-term site occupancy are expected to
remain significant and unavoidable even after all feasible mitigation reductions.
3.3.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
3.3.6.1 Criteria Pollutants
•
The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standards.
The Project has the potential to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the
ambient air; therefore, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the local,
State, and federal levels. Projects that do not exceed, or can be mitigated to less than, the applicable
threshold values and do not exceed the projections of the local zoning plan typically do not add
significantly to a cumulative impact. With the prescribed mitigation, construction emissions would
remain within both the daily and yearly threshold values promulgated by the MDAQMD, so they would
not add significantly to the cumulative impact. However, the Project is of a size such that its
operation would result in significant PM10 and potential CO air quality impacts. Any project that
exceeds the prescribed threshold values is also considered as cumulatively significant as it has the
potential to hinder the ability of the area to meet the air quality attainment schedule. As such, the
project contribution to total regional emissions is considered cumulatively significant.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-16
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.3 Air Quality
3.3.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are
no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the MDAQMD does not set CEQA targets
that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide
decision-makers with as much information as possible, the AQS quantifies, to the extent feasible,
potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development.
Construction
Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases.
Construction CO2 emissions are as projected using the URBEMIS2007 computer model and are
presented on a yearly basis by construction phase in 3.3-2. Assuming the 16-year construction
schedule, CO2 emissions average about 316.74 tons per year and construction would produce
roughly 5,067.76 tons of CO2 over the 16 years combined.
Site Operations
In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically CO2, are
due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. Results of the URBEMIS2007 model included in 3.3-3
indicate that on average 12,627.09 tons of CO2 would be produced yearly.
In accordance with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan prepared for the South Coast Air Basin,
the emission levels in California are estimated to be 600 million metric tons (661.4 million short
tons) CO2 equivalent for 2020, the latest year estimated. At approximately 12,627.09 tons per year,
the project operations represent less 0.002 percent of this State’s annual CO2 emissions’ 2020
budget.
On the other hand, the project is to include a 5-megawatt wind/solar generation facility that would
reduce the College's dependence on other sources of electricity that are typically more polluting.
GHG emissions for the consumption of electricity are based on data included in the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (November
2006) and equate to approximately 618.2 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity
consumed.
Assuming that the wind/solar system operates at a rate of 5 megawatt-hours for an average period
of 12 hours per day, (60 megawatts per day), this facility is estimated to reduce the daily CO2 loading
by 37,092 pounds (18.55 tons). A yearly savings of 13,538,580 pounds (6,769.3 tons) or almost
half of the project’s CO2 emissions would be realized.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.3-17
3.4 N OISE
3.4.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.4.1.1 Noise Descriptors
Decibels
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure
waves in a compressible medium such as air. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic
units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These logarithmic units
are referred to as “decibels” and are commonly abbreviated as dB. Since decibels are logarithmic
units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For
example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer,
two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce
73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. For example, doubling
the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB.
Conversely, reducing the traffic volume by one-half or reducing speed by one-half will reduce the
traffic noise level by 3 dB.
A-Weighting
The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans respond to noise.
While the intensity of a sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response
depends on the characteristics of the human ear. In general, the healthy human ear is most
sensitive to sounds between 1,000 hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz and perceives both high and low
frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. The A-scale approximates the
frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds.
When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments
correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. The A-weighted sound level of traffic
and other long-term noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably
with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the Aweighted level during representative periods with a specified portion of the day. Figure 3.4-1 displays
the range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities.
Noise Exposure Measurements
A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure
experienced by an individual. There are a number of measures of noise exposure than considering
not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department
of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have
adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). The City of Victorville Noise Element uses the
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). Figure 3.4-2 shows the outdoor CNEL and Ldn at typical locations.
CNEL weights the average noise levels by increasing them 5 dB for evening hours (7:00 PM to 10:00
PM) and 10 dB for late evening and morning hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The daytime noise levels
(7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL
value.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
FIGURE 3.4-1:
COMMON NOISE SOURCES AND A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
3.4 Noise
FIGURE 3.4-2:
COMMON CNEL AND LDN EXPOSURE LEVELS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
December 2008
Page 3.4-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
The Ldn measure, adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), is similar
to CNEL but only weights the late evening and morning hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) by 10 dB. The
Ldn does not weight the evening hours (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM). Again, the daytime noise levels (7:00
AM to 10:00 PM) are combined with the weighted late evening and morning noise levels (10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM) and averages to obtain an Ldn value.
3.4.1.2 State and Local Regulations
State of California Office of Planning and Research
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 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. The OPR Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table
that describes the compatibility of different land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in
terms of CNEL. A noise environment of up to 70 dB CNEL is considered to be conditionally
acceptable1 for residential, school, and park uses, according to those Guidelines. At office buildings,
business, commercial and professional land uses, a CNEL of up to 77.5 dB is considered to be
conditionally acceptable. For industrial land uses, a CNEL of up to 80 dB is considered conditionally
acceptable.
City of Victorville General Plan
The City’s General Plan Noise Element contains a land use compatibility table that describes the
compatibility of different land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Ldn.
Table 3.4-1 identifies the land use/noise compatibility guidelines for the study area.
TABLE 3.4-1
CITY OF VICTORVILLE LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Land Use
Residential
Office buildings, business,
commercial, and professional
Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals,
and nursing homes
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks
Day/Night Average
Sound Level (Ldn)
Normally
Conditionally
Acceptable
Acceptable
60 dB or less
60-70 dB
65 dB or less
65 -77.5 dB
60 dB or less
60-65 dB
65 dB or less
65-72.5 dB
Notes:
Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are
of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
1
Conditionally Acceptable (as defined by the State of California Office of Planning and Research): 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.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
City of Victorville Noise Ordinance Standards
The City of Victorville’s Municipal Code establishes the following noise standards for various types of
land uses as shown below.
TABLE 3.4-2
CITY OF VICTORVILLE AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Zone
Daytime
Nighttime
All residential zones
65 dBA
55 dBA
All commercial zones
70 dBA
70 dBA
All industrial zones
75 dBA
75 dBA
Source: City of Victorville Noise Ordinance
3.4.1.3 Existing Noise Environment
Ambient Noise Levels
The primary noise source in the City of Victorville and on the VVC Campus is motor vehicle traffic. The
City has identified major roadways where traffic noise exceeds 65 dBA (A-weighted noise level
measured in decibels). The nearest major roadway to the Campus is Bear Valley Road along the
southern boundary. Based on the projected average daily traffic of 50,000 vehicles along that
arterial, the noise level associated with Bear Valley Road would be below 55 Ldn (average day/night
noise level), according to the General Plan Noise Element2. The VVC Campus is nearly five miles from
Interstate 15, which does not contribute to ambient noise levels on the Campus.
The project site is not within the 65 CNEL associated with the Southern California Logistics Airport in
Adelanto, nor is it within the 60 CNEL associated with the Apple Valley Airport or Hesperia Airport.
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the VVC Campus include single-family residences northwest
of the campus, approximately seven of which are within 100 feet of the Campus boundary; singlefamily residences along the Campus' northeast boundary, approximately 30 of which are less than
50 feet from the Campus; and the on-site high school and daycare center along the Campus' western
boundary. Additional residential development exists further to the north and east, generally 200 feet
or more from the Campus.
Predominant existing noise sources in the study area include traffic on Campus and on the local
streets, ongoing construction and other routine activities at the College, and sports activities are the
various venues across the Campus, including the baseball field along the northern boundary and the
tennis, softball, and soccer fields along the eastern boundary. Since the baseball diamond in the
northern Campus abuts an existing community golf course and is separated from the nearest
residences by nearly 700 feet, it is likely that little or no adverse noise encroaches upon those
nearest residents. Likewise, the existing softball facilities, ballfields and courts along the eastern
boundary are over 0.25 mile from residences farther east across the Mojave River.
2
See also Noise Element, Figure 5, Potential Future Noise Contours Spring Valley Lake Planning Area.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4.2
3.4 Noise
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the noise criteria presented above and CEQA Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant noise impacts would result if the Project would result in:
• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
This impact will occur if (1) the project increases the Ldn above the conditionally acceptable
guidelines identified in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, or (2) the noise levels generated
by the operation of the project exceed the City’s Noise Control standards3 as identified in Chapter
13.01 of the City's Municipal Code.
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project.
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project.
• Exposure of persons residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels as a
result of activities at an airport.
3.4.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
3.4.3.1 Construction Impacts
•
The Project will not cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
Noise impacts from the Proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction
equipment; the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses; and the duration of the noise-generating
activities. Construction activities could include demolition of existing structures, pavement, and
asphalt; grubbing and clearing; excavation; and grading – all in varying degrees depending on the
construction project at hand.
Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type,
number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The exposure of persons to
the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term. Table 3.4-3 shows typical noise levels
associated with various types of construction machinery. Most of the heavy equipment listed could
be used at some point during construction, much of it simultaneously. Operation of construction
equipment may generate intermittent noise levels ranging from about 70 dBA during clearing and
grading up to 80 dBA during construction at approximately 150 ft from the source. During
construction, temporary periods of increased noise levels could be expected in the immediate area
on the campus. It is not expected that construction noise would be adversely audible to the nearest
residences.
3
Section 13.01.060 (Noise source exemptions) indicates that activities conducted on the grounds of the College shall be
exempted from the Noise Control provisions; however, the College has evaluated potential noise effects in light of those
provisions in order to provide a reasonable standard for evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
TABLE 3.4-3
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment Type
Air Compressor
Backhoe
Compactor
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Crane
Dozer
Generator
Grader
Jackhammer
Loader
Pneumatic Tools
Power Hand Saw
Pump
Roller
Tractor
Trucks
Typical Average Equipment
Noise Level at 100 ft.
in dB(A)1
69
69
74
74
69
69
69
69
79
69
69
74
69
69
74
79
69
Notes:
1 With noise controls applied. Obtainable by selecting quieter
procedures or machines and implementing noise control
features such as improved mufflers, use of silencers, shields,
shrouds, ducts and engine enclosures.
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
The City of Victorville has adopted a noise control ordinance (Chapter 13.01 of the City of Victorville
Municipal Code) that establishes an ambient noise level of 65 dBA for all residential zones from 7:00
a.m. to 10 p.m. Although the College is exempt from those requirements, construction on the VVC
Campus will generally occur between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays. While emergency
situations or special circumstances may dictate otherwise, there will be no construction activities on
weekends or legal holidays. The City also recognizes acceptable noise standards and assesses
development projects through the development review process in order to ensure noise compatibility
with existing or known future uses.
Although temporary noise increases in the surrounding area may result in annoyance to local
residents during the construction period, adverse effects such as speech interference, sleep
disturbance, and hearing loss are not expected. Noise exposure is "normally acceptable" if the level
of exposure does not require any special noise insulation or special construction techniques to
reduce interior noise levels. The maximum exterior noise level considered to be normally acceptable
for single-family and multiple-family residential development is 65 dBA. Conventional construction of
dwellings pursuant to State Energy Conservation requirements in Victorville due to local climate
automatically achieves a 20 decibel reduction in exterior to interior noise level.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
Construction activities for the FMP projects are not expected to exceed the average day-night sound
level of 65 dBA for residential exteriors, much less an interior noise exposure level. Given the
temporal occurrence of construction noise, as well as the distances between most Campus
improvements and surrounding noise-sensitive receptors, such impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
•
The Project will not expose persons residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise
levels as a result of activities at an airport.
The nearest airports in Hesperia to the south and Apple Valley to the northeast are both over 7 miles
from the College. Therefore, no significant noise-related impact to the Project site and environs will
result from airport activities.
•
The Project will not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Groundborne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with
noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When groundborne
vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to the occupants.4 The degree of
annoyance depends on the type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the frequency of
the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs.
The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based on
published data, typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at a
distance of 25 feet. Projecting this level to the nearest residences to the project site results in a level
that is below the threshold at which building damage occurs, and below the perception threshold of
80 VdB. Therefore, these potential events of short-term groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels are not significant.
3.4.3.2 Operational Impacts
Traffic Noise Exposures
•
The Project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies.
•
The Project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
The City of Victorville General Plan Noise Element (p. 2) identifies the following among the major
noise-related issues affecting future land use decisions in the City:
o Increased development will result in corresponding increases in vehicular traffic on the arterial
roads, and as a result intra-city traffic will continue to be the predominant source of noise in
the planning area.
o Existing and future development of high intensity uses, such as the Mall of Victor Valley and
Victor Valley College, as well as the Southern California Logistics Airport, will continue to
attract concentrations of people, traffic, and activities resulting in significant "localized" noise
impacts.
o New development will have to be monitored to ensure that measures are implemented to
reduce noise exposure as required by the State of California.
4
A generally accepted vibration standard of 0.01 in./sec. is equivalent to a vibration level of 80 VdB.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
Although the College is identified as an existing and future generator of significant "localized"
impacts, the Noise Element also indicates that traffic-related noise exposure contours along Bear
Valley Road will generally fall below 69 Ldn (average day/night noise level) beyond 100 feet from the
roadway centerline, and below 55 Ldn at 800 feet from the roadway. Only the proposed retail
conference center/hotel uses are proposed within 200 feet of the centerline (73 to 64 Ldn). Beyond
200 feet (64 to less than 55 Ldn) is where the majority of campus development will occur, including
all classroom facilities.
According the Noise Element land use compatibility guidelines, the proposed FMP uses and their
location on Campus would be compatible with the projected noise levels resulting from the
estimated 50,000 average daily trips along Bear Valley Road. The VVC Campus will not be
significantly impacted by traffic-related noise. Similarly, the Project-related traffic will not result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project.
Parking Lot Activities
The main noise sources associated with parking structure activities include car doors slamming; cars
starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; car alarms being activated; brake squeal;
and suspension squeal when vehicles pass over speed bumps. For subterranean parking structures,
ventilation fans are often an additional source of noise. To characterize these noise sources,
measurements obtained at an existing college parking structure as part of a previous study were
used. The results of the measurements are summarized below:
TABLE 3.4-4
PARKING STRUCTURE ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source
Suspension squeal
Keyless remote entry
Car door slam
Car starting
Car backing out
Car driving away
Brake squeal
Maximum Noise Level @
50’ from Source
65 dB(A)
64 dB(A)
57 dB(A)
61 dB(A)
55 dB(A)
62 dB(A)
59 dB(A)
Source: Wieland 2004
Activities at the parking structure will be sporadic in nature. To estimate the noise levels that will be
generated by these activities, this evaluation uses the measured data cited identified above, as well
as operational data assumptions from the Traffic Study. The Traffic Study indicates that FMP
buildout will generate approximately 1,754 trips during AM and PM peak hours. Assuming that about
35 percent of peak hour trips (635 vehicles) will enter or leave any one of four parking structures
ultimately planned for the Campus, it is estimated that parking structure activities will generate an
average hourly noise level of 64 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Projecting this level a distance of over
600 feet from the proposed parking structure that is nearest to existing residences, the estimated
noise level would be attenuated to below 48 dB(A).5 This noise level complies with the City’s
standard of 55 dB(A) for single-family developments and impacts would not be significant.
5
Noise attenuation is based on a reduction of about 4.6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source (City of
Victorville Noise Element), which does not factor in topographic or structural impediments to sound transmission.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
Stationary Noise Source Impacts
Under the proposed FMP, the Automotive, Welding, Electronics/CIDG and Construction departments
would be housed in a two-story complex. The shop and service bays will be on the lower level, while
classrooms and lab space for Electronics/CIDG, as well as offices, will be located on the upper level.
Placing the classrooms and offices over the shops will provide an effective acoustic barrier for noise
generated by automotive equipment.
In the case of the proposed Amphitheater/Gallery located just northwest of the proposed Mojave
Fish Hatchery Road entrance, the building’s circular shape will assist with the acoustics of the
amphitheater. The building form will shield the amphitheater from the winds and its high walls are
intended to deflect roadway noise. The same shielding effect and distance of this use from nearby
sensitive noise receptors will prevent any adverse noise impacts.
Acoustical factors such as reverberant spaces, equipment sounds, or excessive noise from outside
the classroom have measurable negative effects on learning rates. Therefore, the FMP contains the
following design strategies that will be applied broadly in all future development on the Campus:
•
Noise Control: Design to minimize noise from HVAC systems and exterior sources. Use wall
systems with appropriate Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings
•
Vibration Control: Design to minimize vibrations from wind loads, traffic, and HVAC systems
Finally, the noise-related effects of constructing and operating the proposed 1 megawatt wind
turbine on the Lower Campus east of Mojave Fish Hatchery Road and north of the soccer field were
evaluated in a previously Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Parsons 2007). The
environmental analysis found that the impacts of the wind turbine would be less than significant.
In summary:
•
Campus construction projects will not generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
•
The College and related traffic will not produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, there
will be no significant impact.
•
Despite the College's exemption from the City’s noise standards, the proposed FMP buildout
will not produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, there will be no significant
impact.
•
The Project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels as a result of activities at an airport. Therefore, there will be no significant impact.
3.4.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the Proposed Project will not result in significant adverse impacts due to noise.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for potential noise impacts. However, the following
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and design features will ensure compliance with established
City standards:
•
Construction activities will be scheduled only between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday
through Friday. No construction will occur on weekends or legal holidays.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 Noise
•
Internal combustion engines used for construction purposes will be equipped with a properly
operating muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Impact tools will be shielded
per the manufacturer’s specifications.
•
Noisy construction equipment items will be located as far as practicable from the
surrounding residential properties.
•
The floor at each level of each parking structure will be brushed to provide a rough surface.
•
Continuous concrete speed bumps with a height of three inches, as well as posted signs, will
be used to minimize vehicle speeds in the parking structures.
3.4.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the proposed VVC Facilities Master Plan would not result in potential significant
noise impacts to the surrounding area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
3.4.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential cumulative noise impact would be a result of combined traffic noise increases from the
Proposed Project and other planned projects in the Project vicinity. Based on the City Noise
Element's projected average daily traffic of 50,000 vehicles (of which VVC is a cumulative
contributor) along Bear Valley Road, the noise level associated with that arterial would be below 55
Ldn (average day/night noise level). Adherence to the Noise Element's land use siting criteria and
noise attenuation measures will ensure that the VVC Campus and surrounding uses are not
adversely impacted by cumulative traffic noise.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.4-10
3.5 P OPULATION AND H OUSING
3.5.1
EXISTING SETTING
The District’s 2006 Educational Master Plan provides a foundation and establishes the direction for
the College’s many programs, services, and activities. While the College’s mission to serve the
postsecondary needs of the community remains constant, there will be changes in population
growth, demographic changes, economic and employment changes, and a political milieu marked by
increased attention to accountability in public education. These changes in population growth and
demography present an opportunity for the College to enhance and expand its educational offering
and services to a larger and more diverse group students. However, it should be noted that
population growth in the communities serviced will not automatically lead to enrollment growth.
Instead, the College will evaluate the merits of innovative approaches to reaching out and marketing
to the students it hopes to attract as part of their enrollment management strategy. The college will
also meet the demand for employees in both the services industry and emerging entrepreneurial
industries and develop partnerships between the College, feeder K-12 school districts and both
private and public employers. 1
The Vision Process part of the Facilities Master Plan found the following 20-year (2005 to 2025)
population growth projections for neighboring cities:
•
•
•
•
Victorville – 50% growth
Hesperia – 100% growth
Adelanto – 82% growth
Apple Valley – 41% growth
As the High Desert region continues to grow in population and job growth, the VVC Facilities Master
Plan will provide new and/or expanded facilities to serve both the existing population and future
population growth. VVC will not only accommodate student increases but also provide jobs for the
region. Therefore, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan in accordance with the Educational
Master Plan is not growth inducing.
The City of Victorville General Plan Housing Element (Table 11a) provides labor force distribution
figures for the City of Victorville. It indicates that VVC is among the City's major employers with
approximately 500 employees in 1990 and 1,000 employees as of the year 2000 update.2 The
number of College employees will continue to growth as the campus grows, providing new jobs for
the region. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element states that “The City recognizes that as the
local population continues to grow, new schools will be necessary to accommodate additional
students….”3 Therefore, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan is in conformance with the
City’s future population growth and the region’s jobs-Housing balance. The City’s General Plan Land
Use Element also states that a college provides an average of 15 jobs per acre.4
2007 Victor Valley Community College District Educational Master Plan, Executive Summary, pp. 1-2..
2000 City of Victorville General Plan Housing Element, Table 11a, p. 18.
3 City of Victorville General Plan Land Use Element, p. 5.
4 Ibid., p. 8-10.
1
2
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.5-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.5.2
3.5 Population and Housing
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant population and housing impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
y
Induce substantial 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).
y
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitation the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
y
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of housing
elsewhere.
3.5.3
y
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Project would not induce substantial 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).
Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan will not induce substantial population growth because it
allows the District to meet the existing demand for diverse community college educational services.
The College will continue to provide jobs as the campus is expanded. Growth in the region is a result
of local and regional land use decisions, not implementation of the Master Plan. As an alternative,
the Facilities Master Plan includes a student housing option that may be implemented as part of the
College’s expansion plans. If implemented, student housing would be provided on campus for
existing and future students. The number of potential beds (248) is not large enough to be growth
inducing for the City or the High Desert region. As a result, implementation of the Facilities Master
Plan will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth because implementation of
the Facilities Master Plan is in response to the increased and changing demands for postsecondary
education in the region.
y
The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan does not displace any existing housing because
proposed facilities will be built on the existing Victor Valley College campus. Therefore, there are no
impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing.
y
The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of housing elsewhere.
Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan does not displace any people because the proposed
facilities will be built on the existing Victor Valley College campus which has no housing. Therefore,
there are no impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people.
3.5.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Because the Proposed Project will not be growth inducing or result in the displacement of any
housing and/or people, there are no impacts to population and housing. Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.5-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.5.5
3.5 Population and Housing
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts on population and housing. No
mitigation measures are required.
3.5.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Population, housing, and employment in the City of Victorville and the High Desert region will
continue to be affected by changes in population growth, demographic changes, economic and
employment changes, and a political milieu marked by increased attention to accountability in public
education. These changes in population growth and demography present an opportunity for the
College to enhance and expand its educational offering and services to a larger and more diverse
group students. Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan will be in response to both growth and
the changing demands upon postsecondary education. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not
result in direct or indirect cumulative impacts.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.5-3
3.6 R ECREATION
3.6.1
EXISTING SETTING
Victor Valley College currently provides a variety of recreational and educational-recreational
opportunities for students and staff. These recreational opportunities include pedestrian paths,
athletic fields (soccer, football, lacrosse, track and baseball fields and tennis courts).
3.6.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant recreation impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
•
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.
•
Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
3.6.3
•
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Project would not 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.
Increased use of recreational facilities is generally spurred by population growth in an area due to
the development of new housing units. The proposed project is the development of new buildings
and facilities pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan to accommodate both current and future student
educational needs within the VVCCD. Some of these new and/or expanded recreational facilities
include a new lighted stadium with a football field and a regulation size running tract and upgraded
baseball and softball fields and facilities. If the optional student housing is implemented as part of
the Facilities Master Plan, these student residents will use the College’s recreational facilities in
addition to the commuting students. Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan will not cause an
increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the
City or High Desert region. These facilities are being used by residents where their housing is located.
Therefore, the proposed project impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
•
The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Development pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan would include the development of additional
recreational facilities. Physical effects on the environment associated with the construction of these
recreational facilities are considered in this EIR as part of the project as a whole. Therefore,
implementation of the recreational components of the Facilities Master Plan will have the same
impacts as the Proposed Project.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.6-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.6.4
3.6 Recreation
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the recreational components of the Facilities Master Plan will be no different than
implementation of the overall Facilities Master Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts to recreation
and no specific recreational mitigation measures are required.
3.6.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts on recreation. No mitigation
measures are required.
3.6.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The increasing demand for recreational and educational recreational facilities as the campus grows
will not have a cumulative impact on recreation facilities off-site. Therefore, the Proposed Project will
not result in direct or indirect cumulative impacts to recreation.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.6-2
3.7 B IOLOGICAL R ESOURCES
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the
proposed project in June 2008 (see Appendix C).
3.7.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.7.1.1 Land Use and Landscape Zones
The FMP describes the Campus as follows:
“The campus has a unique topography consisting of a man made lake, streams and ponds
supplied by four natural wells. The lake adds beauty to the campus, but it is also used in a
unique way by cooling some of the surrounding buildings, an early example of sustainable
design. The lake is also used to irrigate the playing fields on Lower Campus.
The campus has a dramatic terrain feature that is an elevation change of approximately 60 feet.
At the top of the “Slope” one can see spectacular views of the Mojave River, the desert horizon
and mountains beyond. The level change gradually decreases as the slope continues to
transition the two campuses along a south-west direction. Within this desert campus oasis are
microclimates such as a riparian zone around the lake and ponds. There are tall evergreen trees
that provide shade and wind protection and water plants. At the northern end of the campus
there is a sensitive wetland with tall reeds, sage brush and animals. This area is cared for by the
Natural Resources department. At the Lower Campus, there are lush green athletic fields. The
campus also has a desert microclimate, with sage brush, wild flowers and silt, sand and gravel
soil."1
The FMP divides the Campus into the following planning zones:
•
A – Campus Outreach
•
E - Main Entry
•
B – Technical Education
•
F – Nature Preserve
•
C – Core Campus
•
G – Athletics & Physical Education
•
D – Campus/Community Athletic Fields
These zones were previously shown on Figure 2-6 (Campus Zones). Zones A, C, D, E, and G consist
mainly of urban or built up land currently occupied by existing Campus facilities and man-made
ponds. Zones B and F are not developed and consist of highly disturbed Mojave creosote bush scrub
and Mojave mixed woody scrub vegetation, including a man-made wetland. These wetlands have
been extensively researched and documented by the Environmental/Sustainability Technology
department.
The Landscape Concept Plan organizes the Campus into four microclimate zones: Riparian
Woodlands, Desert Grasslands, Joshua Tree Woodlands, and Arroyo Desert Wash. The microclimate
zones are described as follows in the FMP.
1
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan 2007. Introduction, p. 9.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.7 Biological Resources
•
“The Riparian Woodlands is a lush wooded area with tall shade trees such as Cottonwoods,
Willows and California Sycamores. The tall trees provide a sense of enclosure and shelter
from the winds. Their height offers shade and a sense of coolness. The Riparian Woodlands
area is near a water source such as the lakes, ponds, and streams.
•
The Desert Grasslands is a low height grass area with Rice grass, Desert Needle grass, wild
flowers, Creosote bushes and California Buckwheat bushes. The area’s low level planting
provides a sense of warmth and openness.
•
The Joshua Tree Woodlands is an area landscaped with California Juniper trees, Joshua
trees, and Mohave Yuccas and desert wild flowers. It is an open area, sparsely planted giving
a sense of dryness and heat.
•
The Arroyo Desert Wash is a rocky, gravelly, dry area most of the year. It is designed as a
flood control mechanism for Lake 1, the main body of water on the Campus. It becomes
activated during heavy rains controlling run off into Lake 2 at Lower Campus and the new
Lake 3, a retention basin at the bottom of ‘The Pit’. It is landscaped with Smoke trees, Cat
Claw trees, Desert Willow trees, Desert needle grass and desert wildflowers.”2
As shown previously on the Landscape Concept (Figure 2-8), the perimeter layer of the Campus is
zoned and landscaped using the Joshua Tree Woodlands palette. The next inward layer is
landscaped with the Desert Grasslands palette. Lake 1, Lake 2, and the Technology Education
department are landscaped using the Riparian Woodlands palette. The Arroyo Desert Wash is
located at the bottom of “the Pit” and between Lake 1 and 2.
All of the landscaping and plants are native to the area and are part of the new sustainability
guidelines identified in the FMP. Zone F – Nature Preserve is in the Desert Grasslands and Joshua
Tree Woodlands landscape zones.
3.7.1.2 Biological Survey Results
The Biological Resources Assessment includes an evaluation of sensitive biological resources within
the Victor Valley College campus. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the occurrence
potential for special-status species and sensitive or jurisdictional habitats within the Campus. The
methodology included a literature and database search and a review of aerial photography. The
literature search found a total of 58 special-status species and sensitive habitats (24 special-status
plants, one sensitive habitat, and 37 special-status animals) within the nine-quadrangle area in the
vicinity of the Proposed Project.
The BRA identified three terrestrial habitat types on the Campus. They are: 1) Mojave Creosote Bush
Scrub, 2) Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub, and 3) Urban/Built-up Land. Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub and
Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub were identified in Zones B and F. Urban or Built-up Land dominates
Zones A, C, D, E, and G on the Campus as well as the immediate vicinity (within 5 miles). All of these
habitats were considered as highly disturbed. None of these habitats are considered sensitive by the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
2
Ibid., p. 32.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.7 Biological Resources
The BRA also identified water features on the Campus site as:
•
Man-made freshwater emergent wetland (along the northern boundary of Zone F) - This
habitat may be considered to be potentially jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) or CDFG.
•
Man-made freshwater pond (Zones C and D) - These ponds are not likely to be considered to
be jurisdictional by USACE or CDFG.
•
Riverine habitats (Zone B - flood control channel) – Riverine systems consist of intermittent
or continually running water. This habitat may be considered jurisdictional by USACE or CDFG.
Though off-Campus, the Mojave River adjacent to the east is also a riverine habitat.
The project site is outside any federal or State designated critical habitat for threatened or endanger
species. The following special-status species that “may occur” within the Campus due to the
presence of suitable habitat and known local records for the vicinity include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Booth’s evening-primrose
Desert cymopterus
Joshua tree
Burrowing owl
California horned lark
Yellow-breast chat
Mohave ground squirrel
The BRA also found nesting habitat for non-listed migratory and native avian species protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513
present throughout the open and landscaped portions of the Campus.
3.7.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides thresholds of significance for determining whether
a project could have a significant effect on the environment. According to Appendix G, a project could
have a potentially significant impact on biological resources if the project would:
•
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.
•
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.
•
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.7 Biological Resources
•
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.
•
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
•
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
3.7.3
•
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Project would not 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.
The Victor Valley College campus has provided educational services at this location since 1965. Over
the last 43 years, the Campus has expanded and evolved to its existing condition today. The Campus
is adjacent to the Mojave River which is a wildlife corridor and riparian habitat for migratory bird
species. There is also a CDFG fish hatchery adjacent to the Campus. The fish hatchery contains a
water source which drains into a nearby creek adjacent to the existing wetlands research area. The
Campus also includes manmade lakes, ponds, and other features that support wildlife. The
continued development of the Campus as identified in the FMP will not substantially interfere 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. The FMP’s
Landscape Concept promotes the use of landscaping and plants that are native to the area. The FMP
also contains sustainability guidelines for landscaping. Although the Campus is adjacent to the
Mojave River, implementation of the FMP will not impact the river. Therefore, any potential impacts
are less than significant and will not require mitigation.
•
The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
•
The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Implementation of the FMP does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources or conflict with any adopted or approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plans. The City of Victorville does have an ordinance protecting Joshua Trees (City
Ordinance No. 1224). However, the College has a Joshua Tree Woodlands landscape zone with
California Juniper trees, Joshua trees, and Mohave Yuccas and desert wild flowers. The project site is
an existing college campus and the majority of the site is developed. The sustainable landscaping
program which is part of the FMP promotes the use of landscaping and plants that are native to the
area.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.7.4
3.7 Biological Resources
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the findings of the Biological Resources Assessment, implementation of portions of the
FMP may have significant adverse impacts on sensitive biological resources, therefore requiring
mitigation.
•
The Project could have an 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.
Three special-status plant species (Booth’s evening-primrose, desert cymopterus, and Joshua tree)
and four special-status wildlife species (burrowing owl, California horned lark, yellow-breasted chat,
and Mojave ground squirrel) may occur within Zones B and F. Future development within Zones B
and F could impact these species. Direct impacts would include destruction of individuals through
ground disturbing or vegetation removal activities. Impacts to these species would be considered
significant under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to land-clearing activities in Zones B and F, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a survey to identify whether special status species occur at the site. If
special status species are found, a Biological Report shall be prepared to identify the special
status species and provide mitigation as required.
Active nests of nesting migratory and native avian species, including raptors, are protected under the
MBTA and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Construction activities
associated with any of the future development projects that result in the removal of vegetation could
have both direct and indirect impacts to actively nesting birds, including the nests of special-status
species. The breeding season for birds generally occurs from February 1 through September 15.
Implementation of FMP projects during this period could result in both direct and indirect impacts.
Direct impacts would include the destruction of active nests, eggs, or young located within vegetation
removed as a result of construction activities. Indirect impacts would include noise and disturbance
associated with the construction activities that cause birds in adjacent habitats to abandon their
nests. Any impacts (direct or indirect) that result in the abandonment or destruction of an active nest
or the destruction of eggs or young of any protected avian species, including special-status species,
would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prior to land-clearing activities in Zones B and F between
February 1 through September 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting survey to
identify any direct or indirect impacts to actively nesting birds. If direct or indirect impacts
are identified, the biologist shall specify the appropriate mitigation measure(s) for these
impacts. Such measures may include avoidance of occupied nests, working outside an
established buffer area, modified scheduling of grading and clearing, and monitoring of
active nests during construction.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.7 Biological Resources
•
The Project could have an 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.
•
The Project could have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Freshwater emergent wetland (man-made), freshwater pond (man-made), and riverine (Mojave River)
habitats, which are potential wetlands and/or jurisdictional waters, were identified within or
immediately adjacent to the Campus. These habitats are located with the FMP’s Landscape Concept
area called Riparian Woodlands. The Riparian Woodlands is a lush wooded area with tall shade trees
such as Cottonwoods, Willows and California Sycamores. The tall trees provide a sense of enclosure
and shelter from the winds. Their height offers shade and a sense of coolness. These habitats are
not considered sensitive by the CDFG. The wetlands have been extensively researched and
documented by the Environmental/Sustainability Technology department. All wetland areas are
maintained by the District’s landscaping department. The sustainable landscaping program which is
part of the FMP promotes the use of landscaping and plants that are native to the area.
The State of California requires (Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 to 1606) that a Notification of
Lake or Streambed Alteration be submitted to CDFG for “any activity that may substantially divert or
obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or
lake.” The CDFG reviews proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for
measures to project affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed
upon by the CDFG and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. Plans that
require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may also require a permit from the USACE under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any project that may impact the Mojave River or waters draining
to it may be subject to this process. Should activities associated with implementation of the FMP
affect the blue-line stream in Zone B or the Mojave River and its tributaries, a Streambed Alteration
Agreement may be required.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to land-clearing and/or development activities within 300
feet of the blue-line stream in Zone B or the Mojave River, the District shall consult with a
qualified biologist and/or the CDFG to determine the necessity of a Streambed Alteration
Agreement. The District shall also determine USACE permit requirements under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act prior to impacting the Mojave River or tributary waters.
3.7.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the above mitigation measures for sensitive biological resources will reduce the
potential impacts of implementation of the FMP to below a level of significance.
3.7.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Implementation of the FMP on an existing college campus will not contribute incrementally to the
loss of habitat or result in significant impacts on sensitive biological resources. No significant
cumulative impact will occur to sensitive biological resources.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.7-6
3.8 C ULTURAL R ESOURCES
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared a Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis for the
proposed project in June 2008 (see Appendix D). This document details the results of an
investigation of the cultural resources that could represent potential constraints issues associated
with the proposed project. The constraints analysis included assessing whether sensitive cultural
resources could potentially occur at the site and what consequences their presence would have for
implementation of the project.
3.8.1
EXISTING SETTING
The ±252-acre Victor Valley College campus is located at 18422 Bear Valley Road in the City of
Victorville. The Campus is at Sections 35 and 36 of Township 5 North Range 4 West on the Hesperia
quadrangle of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute map series. Both Interstate 15 (I-15)
and State Highway 18 are within approximately four miles and provide regional access. Locally, three
points of access are provided from Bear Valley Road: one at Spring Valley Parkway and two at
Jacaranda Road (formerly Fish Hatchery Road), which is a loop road through the Campus.
Potential cultural resources on the Campus were investigated by a California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) literature records search and a Sacred Lands File search. The purpose
of the literature search was to identify prehistoric or historic archaeological sites and/or historic
buildings and structure previously recorded within the project area. The results of the records search
were reviewed to (1) identify cultural resources within the project area and surrounding area, (2)
identify and determine the adequacy of previous cultural resources studies in the project area, (3)
develop management recommendations for cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area,
and (4) assess what additional cultural resources studies will need to be undertaken for the project.
The Sacred Lands File search included contact with the California Native American Heritage
Commissions (NAHC) to obtain a list of Native American groups or individuals listed by the NAHC for
San Bernardino County and to request a search of the Sacred Lands File.
3.8.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 establishes rules for the analysis of cultural (historical,
archaeological, and paleontological) resources in order to determine whether a project may have a
substantial adverse effect on the significance of these resources. Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines provides thresholds of significance for determining whether a project could have a
significant effect on the environment. According to Appendix G, a project could have a potentially
significant impact cultural resources if the project would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.8-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.8 Cultural Resources
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
According to Section 15064.5, "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially
impaired."
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), a “unique archaeological resource" means
an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the
following criteria:
(1)
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2)
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type.
(3)
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
3.8.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The CHRIS records search determined that only a small portion of the project area (less than 10%)
has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Therefore, there may be unknown cultural
resources that could be significantly impacted as a result of implementation of the Facilities Master
Plan.
3.8.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.8.4.1 Historical and Archaeological Resources
• The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The CHRIS records search determined that 45 previous cultural resource studies have been
conducted within one mile of the project area, including three studies that cover small portions of the
project area and six studies that follow Bear Valley Road/Bear Cutoff which is immediately adjacent
to the southern project boundary.
The CHRIS records search determined that one previously recorded cultural resource (36-020151), a
historic irrigation feature is known within the project area and two previously recorded cultural
resources (Old Mojave Trail {CA-SBR-3033/H} and a historic road alignment (CA-SBR-7051H} are
located immediately adjacent to the project area. An additional 25 cultural resources have been
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.8-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.8 Cultural Resources
recorded within one mile of the project, indicating that the project area and surround area is
sensitive for prehistoric and historic archaeological and historic build environment resources.
The NAHC Sacred Lands File search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural
resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC letter included a list of nine Native American
individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of resources in the area.
Due to known archaeological resources on the project site and in the surrounding area, the proposed
project has a high potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources. This loss could result
in a significant adverse impact to archaeological resources. The following mitigation measures will
reduce this potential impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to construction activities for implementation of the Facilities
Master Plan, a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment shall be completed by qualified
cultural resources professionals. The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment may
recommend archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance. A pre-construction
meeting shall be conducted in which a qualified archaeologist shall explain procedures
necessary to identify, protect, and safely remove potentially significant archaeological
materials for study and curation.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: If historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered
during construction activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a
qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find and identify the appropriate
treatment of the resource. The methods used during monitoring and/or recovery of
archaeological resources shall be documented in a report of findings. Construction activities
may continue in other areas of the project site while evaluation and treatment of historical or
unique archaeological resources takes place. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work such as testing or data recovery may be necessary.
• The Project could disturb and human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Although there is no knowledge of human remains on the project site, the following standard
condition is included as mitigation.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during
ground disturbances. The State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
addresses these finds. This code section states that no further disturbance shall occur until
the County Corner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human
remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, which will determined and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The
MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may
recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.8-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.8 Cultural Resources
3.8.4.2 Paleontological Resources
• The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Recorded paleontological resources recovery sites are widespread throughout the City of Victorville.
The Campus has soils and geologic formations with low to high paleontologic sensitivity. There are no
known paleontological sites on the Campus. However, earthmoving activities associated with
construction, as well as the unauthorized collection of fossil remains by construction personnel,
could result in the loss of previously unrecorded fossil sites. This loss could result in a significant
adverse impact to paleontological resources. The following mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: A pre-construction meeting shall be conducted in which a qualified
paleontologist shall explain procedures necessary to identify, protect, and safely remove
potentially significant paleontological materials for study and curation. In the event
paleontological resources are encountered during earthwork, the construction contractor will
cease activity in the affected area and redirect activities into another area until a qualified
paleontologist can evaluate the discovery, and implement appropriate treatment measures, if
necessary. The paleontologist would determine if the paleontological material should be
salvaged, identified, and permanently preserved. Curation of specimens into an accredited
museum repository would be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, who would also need to
be retained to develop a mitigation program in accordance with the County of San Bernardino
Development Code §82.20.030, including curation, to mitigate adverse effects associated
with the proposed project.
3.8.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce impacts to cultural resources to a level
of less than significant.
3.8.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The surrounding area includes known and unknown sensitive paleontological resources.
Development activities in this surrounding area will be required by the appropriate lead agency to
evaluate cultural resources under CEQA. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts to
cultural resources from implementation of the proposed project.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.8-4
3.9 H YDROLOGY /W ATER Q UALITY
3.9.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.9.3.1 Regional Hydrology and Flooding
The Mojave River flows aboveground along the east boundary of the Victorville Planning Area and the
VVC Campus, creating a unique plant and animal habitat in the High Desert. The existence of water
all year allows for the survival of plants and animals not commonly found in other portions of the
Planning Area or High Desert. The Mojave River Corridor Task Force was formed in 1989 to protect
and manage this unique environmental resource and groundwater recharge area. The Task Force
consisted of the cities of Victorville, Apple Valley and Hesperia and the County of San Bernardino. The
Task Force adopted the Mojave River Corridor Management Plan to achieve the goals of using the
river corridor for a recreational trail and access, and to preserve significant, natural areas and the
natural resources of the Mojave River corridor.
Portions of the Mojave River corridor are located in floodplains, as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) based on engineering and hydrologic studies. FEMA has identified those
areas of Victorville that are at risk due to periodic flooding, including the flood zone immediately east
of the Campus. Figure 3.9-1 is adapted from FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)1 and shows
the general limits of flooding on and adjacent to the Campus. As shown, the 100-year floodplain is
generally limited to the well-defined Mojave River channel. The FIRM shows that there is a
provisionally accredited levee that protects the Lower Campus from the 1 percent annual- chance
flood.2 The 100-year floodplain (Zone A on Figure 3.9-1) is designated as Open Space in the City of
Victorville's General Plan.
3.9.3.2 Campus Drainage and Stormwater Management
As shown in Figure 3.9-2, the Campus is currently divided into a Lower Campus to the east and an
Upper Campus to the west. The Upper Campus is characterized by hilly terrain, comprised of a series
of relatively flat mesas incised by ravines (arroyos) draining to the Mojave River to the east. Slopes
are up to 25-feet high and maximum topographical relief of the Upper Campus is on the order of 80
feet. The Lower Campus, adjacent to the Mojave River, is located on a relatively flat floodplain. This
portion of the campus is bisected by Fish Hatchery Road, and consists primarily of athletic fields and
parking lots, although there are several structures. Numerous school buildings, parking lots, and
other related facilities are present on the Upper and Lower Campuses. However, much of the VVC
property remains undeveloped. Undeveloped areas are generally covered with a thin growth of typical
desert brush and grasses.
1
2
FIRM Panel 06071C6485H, effective 08/28/2008
According to FIRM Panel 06071C6485H, "To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is required to submit
documentation necessary to comply with 44 CFR Section 65.10 by August 8, 2009. Because of the risk of overtopping
or failure of the structure, communities should take proper precautions to protect lives and minimize damages in these
areas, such as issuing an evacuation plan and encouraging property owners to purchase flood insurance."
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
VVC Campus
Source: FEMA FIRM Panel 06071C6485H, effective 08/28/2008
F i g u re 3 . 9 - 1 : F EM A F l o o d Z o ne s
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Figure 3.9-2 also depicts general surface flow directions on Campus. In the Upper Campus,
stormwater runoff is primarily conveyed by curb and gutter along the Campus roadways, then to
storm drains or to Lake 1. Culverts and storm drains are also used to convey stormwater downslope
from the Upper to Lower Campus. On the Lower Campus, surface water drains towards the Mojave
River where it discharges to undeveloped land and percolates into the ground.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
F i g u re 3 . 9 - 2 : Ex i s ti ng S to rm wa te r D ra i na g e
December 2008
Page 3.9-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Campus Lake System
The main lake (Lake 1) serves multiple functions. It is part of the Campus' stormwater management
system, whereby much of the surface water on the Upper Campus drains to the lake. In addition, the
existing buildings surrounding Lake 1 have mechanical chiller lines extending into the lake. The
existing mechanical cooling system uses well water that is pumped into the lake to pre-cool water
inside the chiller lines and then circulate it through machines that cool the occupied spaces. The
remaining water exits the chillers and drains into the lake through small rock creeks and ponds.
Finally, the lake water is also used to irrigate a portion of the Upper Campus landscaping, though the
FMP indicates that pumping limitations prevent complete irrigation of the landscaping at the south
end of the lake. The remaining landscape area on Upper Campus that is not irrigated by Lake 1 uses
domestic water purchased from an off Campus water purveyor.
During summer when the mechanical cooling system requires additional well water, the water supply
in Lake 1 becomes greater than the demand needed for irrigation. As a result, the surplus water is
moved from Lake 1 to an earthen reservoir (Lake 2) at the Lower Campus. The water is used for
irrigation and, if not used, eventually percolates back into the ground.
3.9.3.3 Off-Campus Drainage
Areas west and north of the campus are hydrologically connected to the northern Campus and will
have an effect on the types and sizes of flood control facilities ultimately constructed as the Campus
develops. An undetermined area of vacant land off-Campus and west of Spring Valley Parkway drains
to an approximately 25-foot wide concrete trapezoidal channel that extends north-northeast from
Lindero Street. The channel enters a culvert beneath Spring Valley Parkway, where it becomes a 40foot wide concrete channel traversing the undeveloped northwestern portion of the Campus for a
length of approximately 1,200 feet. At this point, its drainage area also includes that undeveloped
area of the Campus, residential areas to the north, and segments of Jacaranda Road and Spring
Valley Parkway. Segments of the channel walls are deteriorating from lack of maintenance. The
channel terminates and becomes a natural drainage course as it leaves the Campus property and
enters the golf course, upon which it discharges to a detention pond and becomes a part of a larger
series of lakes and channels on the golf course.
This particular lake also receives discharges from a concrete channel that runs southwesterly
between the residential tract to the north and the CDFG fish hatchery on the south. Whether from the
hatchery operations or from the pond on the CDFG property, this channel is a perennial source of
water discharged to the golf course. Another man-made water discharge comes from the CDFG pond
and traverses the northeaster portion of the Campus, supporting the on-site wetlands that are
managed by the Natural Resources Department. This easterly flow exits the Campus property and
discharges to the Mojave River.
3.9.3.4
Groundwater
Based regional groundwater data cited by Leighton (2006), groundwater is expected to be on the
order of 90 feet or greater below the ground surface in the Upper Campus vicinity. Other than a
shallow groundwater lens associated with Lake 1, no groundwater was encountered during the 2005
borings that extended to a maximum depth of 51 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
On the Lower Campus, historic groundwater levels have ranged from about 5 feet bgs in the 1950s
to between 20 and 30 feet bgs in the 1970s.3 During 2005 geotechnical borings, groundwater was
encountered at approximately 40 feet bgs. In general, the water table has lowered as a result of
groundwater usage practices in the upper Mojave River Basin, though groundwater levels can be
expected to fluctuate with seasonal precipitation.
Most of the water for VVC is provided by active local wells within County Service Area (CSA 64). The
City of Victorville is located in the Mojave River Ground Water Basin, with the Mojave River as its
primary recharge source. The VVC Campus is in the Alto Sub-Basin, which is in a state of overdraft,
experiencing a two-foot average decline in the water table each year.4 Adjudication of the water
supplies in the Mojave River area was made in 1995 and relied upon a combination of water
conservation, purchase of imported water, and water transfers between producers to eliminate the
groundwater overdraft (Victorville 2007).
3.9.3.5
Regulated Activities
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Water Board) has adopted a
Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan),5 which contains prohibitions, water
quality standards, and policies for implementation of those standards. The District is subject to
applicable water quality standards and prohibitions presented in the Basin Plan.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Water Board each regulate discharges
which could affect the quality of waters of the State in order to protect the chemical, physical,
biological, bacteriological, radiological, and other properties and characteristics of water, which
affects its use (California Water Code section 13050(g)). A number of ongoing Campus activities
associated with new development, particularly grading and site preparation, may require permits
issued by the SWRCB or other agencies. Those activity permits may include:
•
Discharge of fill material - Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 water quality certification for
federal waters, or Waste Discharge Requirements for non-federal waters
•
Land disturbance - CWA section 402(p) stormwater permit (Construction Stormwater Permit)
3.9.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant hydrology and water quality impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
y
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
y
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted).
Leighton 2006, p. 7
Parsons 2007, p. 29
5 The Basin Plan is available on line at the Regional Board's website at http//:www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/
3
4
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
y
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
y
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off- site.
y
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.
y
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
y
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
y
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows.
3.9.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
3.9.3.1 Hydromodification
y
The Project would not 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.
The proposed Project involves the phased development of planned facilities at the College, including
demolition of existing facilities to provide space for planned facilities. On undeveloped land, this level
of development would likely alter the existing drainage patterns of rainfall absorption and surface
water runoff, potentially causing an increase in rates of stormwater discharge. However, the FMP
buildout will occur on a largely developed Campus. Additionally, the FMP infrastructure upgrades are
based on years of observation and maintenance, with the benefit of having experienced most, if not
all, of the physical demands that will be placed upon those facilities in the future.
To control stormwater discharges and minimize modifications to drainage patterns, the FMP
proposes a storm drain system consisting of two existing lakes (Lakes 1 and 2) and one proposed
retention basin (Lake 3) that will be connected by underground pipes and an above-ground, rocklined water channel. The proposed channels and vegetated drainage features are generally within
the Arroyo Desert Wash microclimate zones depicted on Figure 2-7, Landscape Concept, in Chapter
2.0 (Project Description). The storm drain system will have four separate subsystems, as illustrated
on Figure 3.9-3 and described below:
1. The first subsystem will connect Lake 1 with Lake 3. It will serve the Administration Building
and the Central Plant.
2. The second subsystem will start at the Child Development Center and travel north along
Jacaranda Road to serve TechED and the Fire Training Grounds.
3. The third subsystem will connect Lake 1 with Lake 2 and will serve the new Stadium, the
baseball and softball fields.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4. The fourth subsystem will be a functioning water feature that starts at Lake 1 and proceeds
northeast towards the new Student Services Center (One Stop Shop). This system will be an
above-ground water channel that parallels the Academic Steps and travels down “The Slope.”
This system will change from above-ground to below-ground as it crosses under Fish
Hatchery Road and connects to Lake 2. From Lake 2 the subsystem will channel water runoff
to the north and into the existing wetlands. As this waterway travels towards the wetlands, it
will change from an above-ground concrete and rock-lined channel to a natural rock, sand
and grass-filled creek. This is designed to filter the water before it reaches the wetlands.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
F i g u re 3 . 9 - 3 : P ro p o s e d S to rm d ra i n S ys te m
December 2008
Page 3.9-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Aside from runoff management, the FMP drainage plan proposes filtration of stormwater runoff;
landscape irrigation using captured stormwater; and improvement of existing lake water quality with
the following additional features:
•
A retention basin (Lake 3) will be added to the Lower Campus to capture and retain the
surplus of water from Lake 1. An ideal location for Lake 3 would be the ravine just below the
central plant. This would require the relocation of the existing sewer line in the ravine.
•
Surplus water diverted from Lake 1 to Lakes 2 and 3 will be via surface channels and
subsurface pipes. The surface channels will be incorporated into the new Campus landscape
as a water feature.
•
All of the surface water runoff from hardscape areas will be filtered and cleaned prior to
entering any of the Lakes.
•
Additional aeration of Lakes 1, 2 and 3 will be conducted to control the growth of algae.
•
An additional pump will be added to the south end of the Lake 1 for irrigation and to relieve
the campus from purchasing water for irrigation.
•
Lake 2 will be improved and lined to retain water for irrigation of the Lower Campus.
•
Pumps will be installed at Lake 3 to allow the stored water to be used for irrigating Lower
Campus.
3.9.3.2 Water Quality
y
The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
y
The Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Urban development degrades water quality through a complex of interrelated causes and effects,
which, when unmanaged, adversely affects the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
watersheds in which they occur. The primary potential adverse impacts of urban development
projects on water quality are:
•
The direct physical impacts to aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat and other beneficial
uses;
•
Generation of construction-related and post-construction urban pollutants;
•
Alteration of flow regimes and groundwater recharge as a result of impervious surfaces and
storm drain collector systems; and,
•
Disruption of watershed level aquatic functions including pollutant removal, floodwater
retention, and habitat connectivity.
These factors have historically resulted in a cycle of destabilized stream channels, poor water quality,
and engineered solutions to disrupted flow patterns, culminating in loss of natural functions and
societal values in the affected basins. The number and variability of the pathways through which
water quality degradation can occur complicates analysis, but understanding how these pathways
operate within the specific circumstances of the FMP is essential to effectively mitigating the adverse
effects. In order to evaluate potential impacts, each successive project under the FMP must undergo
evaluation to determine how it will avoid or minimize each potential cause of water quality
degradation; what effects will remain unmitigated through individual project design; and the
magnitude of the remaining adverse effects, if any.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-8
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Consistent with the guidance provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the
FMP identifies features for both the short-term (construction) and the post-construction periods that
will control stormwater on-site or prevent pollutants from non-point sources from entering and
degrading surface waters and groundwater. As described previously, natural drainage patterns are
maintained and/or restored to the extent feasible. The FMP also incorporates designs that use
vegetated areas for stormwater management and infiltration on-site to filter sediment and pollution,
and to regulate the volume of runoff from land surfaces to adjacent washes. Minimum-disturbance
activities (such as preservation of vegetation and grade) are also proposed to protect and preserve
the natural drainage systems. They emulate and preserve the natural hydrologic cycle, moving
stormwater slowly over large permeable surfaces to allow it to percolate into the ground.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has determined that projects such as the proposed FMP
can potentially have significant impacts with respect to water quality, depending on how well the
project is managed. Because the FMP will be implemented in a phased approach, best management
practices (BMPs) must be implemented for each site-specific project. Therefore, project or phasespecific BMPs and stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) must be written. One global
Project SWPPP is insufficient to protect water quality.
The proposed Master Plan will require a significant amount of grading if all of Phases are
implemented. The most substantial grading quantities will be in the northwest portion of the Campus
at the parking lot, the Training Grounds, TechED and Health Professions and Administration of
Justice buildings. Substantial grading will also be required near the One Stop Shop building, which
will employ a stairway to connect the Upper Campus with the Lower Campus, in addition to
pedestrian walkways terracing down the large slope. The proposed athletic complex and athletic
fields east of Fish Hatchery Road will also require large amounts of grading.
In addition to the areas mentioned, Lake 2 and Lake 3 will require grading. The existing Lake 2 will
require some minor regarding and installation of a liner to keep the water from seeping into the
ground. Excavation and grading will be required to create the new Lake 3, which will temporarily hold
water overflow from Lake 1 and allow it to percolate into the ground. The final design of Lakes 2 and
3 will not exceed volumes of 50 acre-feet or exceed depths of 25 feet.
As the designed water features and grading plans progress through the planning and engineering
phases, the College will evaluate the need for permits for those construction-related activities with
the potential to affect water quality or hydrology in federal or State waters. In addition, the College
will prepare project-specific SWPPPs detailing source controls and structural/non-structural BMPs for
the management of sediment and construction-related water contaminants. The College will select
BMPs based on published engineering and design guidance, such as the Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbooks produced by the California Stormwater Quality Association
(CASQA) and available for review at http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/.
Long-Term Impacts
At the overall Campus level, the FMP drainage and water quality plans are designed so that drainage
channels and waters of the State will be avoided to minimize impacts and, where necessary,
mitigation will replace the functions and values of impacted drainages. Planning and engineering
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-9
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
phase studies will specifically address how hydromodification might occur under each subsequent
FMP project. The plans deriving from those studies will implement the following water quality
strategies that are broadly outlined in the FMP:
Site Design/Development Strategies
•
Maximize infiltration of stormwater runoff on-site and prevent increase in rate of
stormwater leaving the site.
•
Design an overall stormwater management plan to include high absorption landscape
areas, bio-retention areas, swales, or rain gardens.
•
Protect native topsoil during construction so it can support the future landscape, reduce
stormwater runoff, reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, and conserve irrigation water.
•
Incorporate existing mature trees and shrubs into new developments.
•
Design landscapes to allow irrigation and stormwater to soak into the soil and recharge
groundwater systems and filter out pollutants.
•
Collect rainwater for reuse or slow release, possibly in conjunction with gray water, for
waste conveyance and/or irrigation.
•
Minimize concrete paving and stormwater runoff by using porous paving materials.
•
Use permeable paving surfaces for drives and parking lots.
•
Use xeriscaping (plants suited for dry arid climates) and water-efficient landscaping.
•
Prevent soil erosion before, during, and after construction by controlling stormwater
runoff and wind erosion. Consider silt fencing, sediment traps, construction phasing,
stabilization of slopes, and maintaining and enhancing vegetation and ground cover.
•
Protect hillsides using adequate erosion control measures such as hydroseeding, erosion
control blankets, and/or sedimentation ponds to collect runoff.
Building Composition/Architecture Strategies
•
Use of natural materials such as stone, lumber, earth, etc. to reduce pollution levels in
environment.
•
Specify materials that do not contain formaldehyde, organic solvents, VOCs and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Given the variable conditions on Campus, different FMP projects might have a range of candidate
BMPs to address stormwater management issues arising from site-specific conditions, hydrologic
conditions of concern, and potential pollutants of concern. The LEED building certification process
described in Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) provides an implementation framework for the types
of water quality protection and drainage improvement measures listed above, and will incorporate
the principles and practices from initial design to contractor specifications and construction
documents to long-term monitoring and sustainability evaluations.
y
The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or that would substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-10
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
While the land area of the VVC Campus includes drainage channels and storm drains that are
tributary to a regional storm channel, an existing research wetlands and, ultimately, the Mojave
River, no aspect of the FMP would modify drainage patterns in a way that would cause substantial
erosion, siltation, or flooding would occur. Section 3.7 (Biological Resources) describes the
circumstances under which potentially impacted drainages would require permits from CDFG,
USACE, or RWQCB. Under all of those circumstances, erosion and siltation control measures would
be part of the permit conditions.
More importantly, the FMP design team and the College recognize that preservation and minimumdisturbance activities may be more cost effective than revegetation practices or structural controls,
especially long-term. The FMP incorporates design features to ensure that stormwater runoff is not
concentrated by Campus development and does not increase the potential for downstream erosion.
The FMP drainage and water quality provisions also reflect the knowledge that stormdrain systems
do not promote the same beneficial uses as a natural ecosystem. As described previously, the
proposed FMP drainage system would not adversely affect existing drainage patterns and would not
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-Campus.
y
The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted).
The proposed system of lakes and water features will ensure that groundwater recharge is
maintained at or above current levels, while also providing an alternative to pumped or imported
water for irrigation in much of the Lower Campus. The FMP is not expected to deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
3.9.3.3 Flood Hazard Potential
y
The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map.
y
The Project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows.
Mojave River Flood Hazard
The Campus west of the Mojave River is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area subject to
inundation by the 100-year flood, as indicated on the official FEMA flood map. The existing levee
located along the bank of the Mojave River is coincident with the limits of the River and contains the
100-year floodplain. As such, the FMP would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood
hazard area. The presence of the levee reduces the potential for most flooding from the Mojave
River, but does not eliminate the threat under extreme circumstances, as discussed below.
Earthquake-Induced Flooding
Earthquake-induced flooding can result from failure of dams or other water-retaining structures
resulting from earthquakes. The Mojave River Dam is located approximately 10 miles upstream from
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-11
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
the site. Leighton Consulting, Inc. (2006) reviewed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mojave River
Dam Emergency Plan Inundation Maps for potential flood hazards on the VVC Campus. These maps
indicate the areas that would be flooded under the assumed condition of a dam breach with the
reservoir water surface at the spillway crest (elevation of 3,134 feet).
Based on that data, the Lower Campus may be flooded during a catastrophic failure of the Mojave
Dam under the aforementioned conditions. Assuming a worst-case scenario, the Lower Campus
could be inundated with approximately 16 feet of water. Should a dam breach occur under these
conditions, the arrival time of the flood is estimated to be approximately 2¼ hours (4 inches of water
over the Lower Campus), and the time to peak water depth is estimated to be approximately 3¼
hours (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). The Leighton report notes that, according to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Inundation Flood Maps reflect “events of an extremely remote nature.”
The Upper Campus is not considered susceptible to earthquake-induced flooding.
3.9.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
No potentially significant impacts were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
3.9.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hydrology or water
quality. No mitigation measures are required.
3.9.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts are those resulting from the range of land
use activities taking place in the Mojave River watershed. Upstream land use changes resulting from
cumulative development will create new impervious surfaces, increase stormwater runoff rates, and
contribute to downstream sedimentation and urban pollutant runoff. Detailed hydrology and
hydraulics studies will continue to analyze land use modifications and specify necessary flood control
and water quality improvements on a project-by-project basis. Those incremental changes are the
subject of the numerous water quality plans and programs that address the watershed and that
contain cumulative development assumptions. By adhering to regulatory programs designed to
protect water resources from adverse impacts, the effects of cumulative upstream development
would be substantially minimized.
Section 15130(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that a project’s incremental contribution
to a cumulative effect “is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement
or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative
impact.” Given that the proposed FMP water quality provisions and site-specific BMPs would
minimize the adverse effects of Campus development, the Project would provide water quality and
flood control benefits that might not otherwise be implemented. The VVC Campus has a large
proportion of disturbed and exposed soils that potentially contribute to downstream siltation and
pollutant transport. Since the Project will mitigate runoff volumes and pollutant loads, its incremental
and cumulative effects on water quality and flood control facilities would be less than significant.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.9-12
3.10 P UBLIC S ERVICES & F ACILITIES
This section evaluates only those issues preliminarily identified as resulting in a "potentially
significant impact" in the Facilities Master Plan Initial Study (Ultrasystems 2007). For Public Services,
the topics are limited to Fire Protection and Police Protection.
3.10.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.10.1.1 Fire Protection Facilities and Services
The San Bernardino County Fire Department – Victorville Division covers over 74 square miles in the
City and responds to over 12,000 incidents annually out of five fire stations located in the City. The
Victorville Division is the newest division in San Bernardino County Fire Department and was formed
on July 05, 2008 when the City of Victorville contracted with County Fire to provide fire protection
services, fire investigations, advanced life support services (ALS), rescue services and Aircraft
Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) to the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) in the City of Victorville.
Spring Valley Lake Station 22 is located on the north end of the Victor Valley College campus next to
the CDFG Fish Hatchery. It primarily serves the adjacent residential lakeside community of Spring
Valley Lake. This station is staffed daily with a full-time Captain, full-time Firefighter Paramedic, and a
paid-call firefighter (PCF). There are often additional Paid-Call personnel available locally via pager to
staff a second unit if needed. Fire apparatus stationed here consist of one ICS Type 1 Paramedic
Engine (ME22), and one ICS Type 3 Brush Engine (BE22). Company 22 regularly assists the
surrounding cities of Hesperia, Victorville, and Apple Valley when needed. These areas also back up
Company 22 on multiple engine responses within Spring Valley Lake.
3.10.1.2 Police Protection Facilities and Services
Victor Valley College has a Campus Police and Public Safety Department that operates in
coordination with the City of Victorville Police Department. The majority of infractions on the VVC
Campus typically include parking and traffic violations, with vandalism and theft occurring much less
frequently.
The College may also receive assistance from the City for criminal investigations and more routine
issues such as traffic control during sporting events or other special Campus events. The City's Police
Department is staffed under contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff and is located at
14200 Amargosa Road. The Victorville Police Department also has three satellite stations in the
general vicinity: Wimbleton Center on Hesperia Road, Victorville Transportation Center on “D” Street,
and an office in the Mall of Victor Valley. There are no known deficiencies in response times or
service to the VVC Campus.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.10-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.10.2
3.10 Public Services and Facilities
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant environmental impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
•
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.
3.10.3
•
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Project will not 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.
3.10.3.1 Fire Protection
The FMP Initial Study (p. 4-25) preliminarily described a "Potentially Significant Impact" to fire
services as follows:
There is an existing Fire Station on campus that is anticipated to remain in operation while a
new, larger facility is constructed as part of the proposed project. The Facilities Master Plan
moves the Fire Technology Building to the western portion of campus and adds a new fire
training grounds, a fire tower, and new fire station. According to the Facilities Master Plan,
the training grounds are a proposed public/private partnership with the County of San
Bernardino Fire Department.
The City of Victorville Fire Department provides fire protection, suppression, and emergency
medical services to the Victor Valley College campus. The development pursuant to the Victor
Valley College Facilities Master Plan would introduce new buildings, structures, and
roadways over an approximately 20 year period. This would include the development of new,
larger fire protection facilities on campus. However, the proposed project would
incrementally introduce more intensive land uses than what currently exists on campus and
there may be potential impacts on fire services due to the development of new campus
facilities prior to the new fire facilities being completed and operational.
The impact significance criterion cited previously is not whether service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives would be affected. Rather, the criterion focuses on "…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." Physical environmental impacts may include those related
to traffic, air quality, noise, biological and cultural resources, water quality, etc. Insofar as the
potential environmental effects of FMP implementation and on-/off-Campus construction have been
analyzed and, if necessary, mitigated at the programmatic level, the EIR has adequately evaluated
planned fire protection facilities.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.10-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.10 Public Services and Facilities
Additionally, the FMP lists the following provisions and details about fire protection facilities and
services that are deemed beneficial:
•
Fire environment – The VVC Campus is in a developed area of Victorville, with no adjacent
wildlands that are subject to, or which would pose, a high fire threat. Wildland fires do not
have the potential to impact the Campus and the project is not the type of development that
would add to the Fire Department's resource and facilities burdens.
•
Fire protection facilities phasing – The new fire station would be constructed in the earliest
stages of Phase 2 construction, after six new buildings totaling about 155,000 square feet
have been constructed on Campus. The existing Spring Valley Lake Station 22 at the
northern Campus boundary (Jacaranda Avenue and Mojave Fish Hatchery Road) will continue
to adequately serve the College until completion of the new fire station.
Once completed, the new fire station will have the advantage of being located with more
immediate access to Spring Valley Parkway and Bear Valley Road, thereby reducing response
times to off-Campus incidents.
•
Fire protection complementary uses – The Campus Community along the western boundary
will include additions to both the Child Development Center and Excelsior High School, along
with the new Fire Station and Fire Technology Department, including the training tower and
Training Grounds. Although the intent of the Fire Technology department is to offer cadets
hands-on training and classroom time with experienced fire fighters, those additional
personnel and resources could provide an extra level of protection in the event of on-site
emergency.
•
Fire technology in building construction – All buildings and appurtenances will be designed
and constructed in accordance with local fire department and building department
requirements, and will meet the College’s standards for fire prevention and protection. The
following are among the specific provisions:
•
o
Fire alarm systems within buildings and parking structures (i.e., exit signs, pull boxes,
emergency pathway lighting, interior/exterior audible devices, and strobe lights);
o
Automatic smoke detection and automated voice evacuation;
o
State-of-the-art extinguishing systems; and
o
Upgrades to older buildings to provide the same capabilities as the systems in the
new buildings.
Firefighting support infrastructure upgrades – The new fire water system will have all of the
required fire department connections and assemblies to serve all new and existing building
fire sprinkler systems. Further, the FMP recommends that the College continually check and
monitor the water pressure to the fire water system (e.g., fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, stand
pipes, etc.) through flow testing to determine if the water pressure meets the current fire
code requirements. If the flow tests do not meet the required pressure, then upgrading the
fire water system will be needed. This proactive approach is intended to avoid unexpected
system pressure losses and ensure proper operation when needed.
In light of the preceding FMP design provisions for fire protection and response, potential
environmental effects are less than significant.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.10-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.10 Public Services and Facilities
3.10.3.2 Police Protection
The FMP Initial Study indicated the possibility of significant environmental impacts associated with
Police Protection, similar to its preliminary analysis of Fire Protection. However, the standard for
evaluation under CEQA is whether the project will create a demand for new facilities, the construction
of which would result in significant physical effects on the environment. Similar to the conclusions
drawn in the Fire Protection discussion, the demand for police services and facilities will increase
over time, yet the physical effects on the environment will not be significant.
The project-related physical impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, biological and cultural resources,
water quality, etc. are analyzed and mitigated at the programmatic level throughout this EIR. The
mitigation of the construction-related and long-term physical effects of FMP facilities buildout is the
basis for concluding that the demand for additional police protection facilities and services is
likewise mitigated and therefore less than significant.
The FMP includes Campus Safety for areas around buildings, pathways and roads. The following FMP
design provisions would enhance Campus safety:
•
Areas along pathways, between buildings, and within/around parking structures are designed
to be open and well illuminated.
•
Pathway routes and parking areas will have emergency code blue phones that have direct
connection to emergency services.
•
Closed circuit television (CCTV) will be used inside and outside of all buildings and parking
structures as another layer of security. All new and existing buildings to remain will have a
security system capable of card access and interfacing with a CCTV system. All buildings will
report to the Campus’ main communications room via fiber optic cables. These systems will
be connected to a central monitoring station, such as the Campus Police station.
The preceding FMP design provisions for police protection and response support the conclusion that
potential environmental effects are less than significant.
3.10.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The siting and construction of Fire and Police Protection facilities will not have the potential to cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for those emergency services.
3.10.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3.10.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
VVC's fire and police protection personnel and facilities are sited on the Campus, serve the College's
demands, and are not subject to off-site demands. As such, the expansion and allocation of VVC's
on-site resources are independent of cumulative projects. Development projects constructed off-site
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.10-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.10 Public Services and Facilities
must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate City and/or County service agency. Any resulting
off-site facilities improvements that are necessary to serve cumulative development would occur
independent of the FMP development program. Since there will be few instances of overlapping
service demands, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.10-5
3.11 U TILITIES AND S ERVICE S YSTEMS
This section evaluates only those issues preliminarily identified as resulting in a "potentially
significant impact" in the Facilities Master Plan Initial Study (Ultrasystems 2007). For Utilities and
Service Systems, the topics are limited to Water Utilities, Wastewater Utilities, and Solid Waste
Facilities. Stormwater drainage and flood control facilities are addressed in Section 3.9 (Hydrology
and Water Quality).
3.11.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.11.1.1 Water Utilities
Water Sources
Water supply is provided by the Victorville Water District (VWD), which obtains its water from the
Mojave Groundwater Basin (Basin). The principal recharge source for the Basin is the Mojave River.
The VVC Campus is in the Alto subarea of the Basin. The depth to groundwater ranges from fifty feet
near the Mojave River to five hundred feet in the western portion of the Spring Valley Lake Planning
Area.
VWD produces groundwater pursuant to the provisions of the Basin adjudication, as administered by
the Mojave Water Agency (MWA). The MWA is responsible for managing groundwater resources in the
Basin, and providing alternate water sources to the region as needed. When the FMP Initial Study
was prepared in 2007, the Victor Valley Water District (now in the consolidated VWD) had 23 wells in
operation with 7 under construction and 3 additional wells in design. Victor Valley College is in a
County Service Area (CSA-64), which serves Spring Valley Lake and Victor Valley College. The majority
of water consumption in CSA-64 is by residential uses followed by commercial and industrial uses
respectively.
VVC Campus water usage generally consists of domestic/potable water, landscape irrigation, and
well water circulation through Lake 1 for building "pre-cooling." Though most landscape irrigation is
via Lake 1 from on-site wells, the remaining landscape area on Upper Campus that is not irrigated by
Lake 1 uses domestic water purchased from an off campus water purveyor.
Water Supply Availability
According to the Regional Water Management Plan (MWA 2004), MWA currently has an average
annual water deficit of approximately 34,300 acre-feet per year. The Alto subarea has the greatest
consumptive use requirements in the Basin. In the Alto subarea, year 2020 consumptive use will be
led by municipal uses, followed by recreational/golf uses, industrial uses and agriculture for a total
deficit of 47,200 acre-feet per year. While the increased groundwater pumping in excess of natural
supplies over the last 50 years has resulted in a decline in groundwater elevations, the groundwater
basins are expected to remain capable of meeting annual water demands through dry years and
consecutive multiple dry years.1
1
Supplement A: 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, p. 42
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
For those reasons, demand management and water conservation are addressed both at the local
(water purveyor) and regional levels in the MWA service area. Water conservation efforts of individual
water agencies and cities are currently being implemented, and are described in the existing Urban
Water Management Plans for each purveyor. Victor Valley College is one of over 20 entities in a
cooperative regional partnership with MWA to improve water use efficiency. To this end, the Alliance
for Water Awareness and Conservation (AWAC) was formed in August of 2003. The goals of AWAC
include:
•
Educate the local communities on the importance of water conservation.
•
Provide the local communities with the tools to effectively reduce per capita consumption to
targeted goals.
•
Reduce regional water use by 10 percent gross per capita by 2010 and 15 percent gross per
capita by 2015 to achieve a sustainable, reliable supply to meet regional water demands.2
In addition to demand management efforts, the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority
(VVWRA) has identified additional opportunities for future recycled water use and is planning to
expand wastewater treatment capacity through development of sub-regional treatment facilities.
Within CSA-64, recycled water availability could increase from 0.8 million gallons per day (MGD) in
2005 to nearly 1.4 MGD in 2020.3
Water System Assessment
The FMP Utilities Appendix (p. 114) provides an assessment of current water utility infrastructure. As
summarized from the FMP:
•
The existing water system was originally constructed between 1960 and 1970 using steel,
ductile iron, and/or asbestos cement pipe.
•
Facilities staff indicated that there were no reported problems with the domestic water
system.
The existing Campus domestic water system is connected to the public water system at two
locations. The first location is at Spring Valley Parkway north of Bear Valley Road. The second
location is at Bear Valley Road and Fish Hatchery Road (see Exhibit C-1 of the FMP Utilities
Appendix).
3.11.1.2 Wastewater Utilities
The FMP Utilities Appendix (p. 114) provides an assessment of current wastewater utility
infrastructure. As summarized from the FMP:
2
3
•
A substantial portion of the existing sewer system was originally constructed between 1960
and 1970 using vitrified clay pipe and asbestos cement pipe having a normal design life of
50 years.
•
Facilities staff indicated that the only reported sewer problem is located on the north side of
the existing central plant. The existing sewer line would clog near the manhole at the bottom
of the slope.
2004 Regional Water Management Plan, p. 7-1
Supplement A: 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, p. 40
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
3.11.1.3 Solid Waste Facilities
Solid waste from the VVC Campus is disposed of in the Victorville Landfill located at 18600 Stoddard
Wells Road in Victorville. The landfill is operated by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., a contractor to the
County of San Bernardino. The Victorville Landfill has a planned capacity of 300,000 tons per year
and an anticipated site life of 20 years (City of Victorville 2007). Victor Valley College is in the solid
waste disposal service area of Victorville Disposal, Inc.
3.11.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant environmental impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
•
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB).
•
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
•
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would require new or expanded entitlements.
•
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
•
Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs.
•
Be in noncompliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
The Initial Study (p. 4-30) states, "The College complies with all applicable laws and regulations
related to solid waste generation, collection, and disposal including applicable waste reduction
requirements. The development of additional campus facilities as part of the project would continue
to comply with all statutes and regulation related to solid waste. Therefore, this issue will not be
examined further in the EIR."
3.11.3
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
3.11.3.1 Water Utilities
Proposed Water Facilities
•
The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
The FMP Utilities Appendix (p. 116) describes the proposed water system as a primary loop
beginning at the connector road between Jacaranda Road and Fish Hatchery Road. From Fish
Hatchery Road there will be a “dead end line” to serve the proposed Equine Center. There will also be
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
three internal loops that will service the Campus Communities at Upper and Middle Campuses. It is
anticipated that all of these lines will be 10-inch diameter pipes. The new Fire Water System will be
combined with the domestic water line, like the existing fire water system.
The primary loop will parallel the sewer line to serve the proposed TechED and the Natural Resources
Campus Communities. If needed, there will be two pressure reducing stations – one located at the
connector road between Jacaranda Road and Fish Hatchery Road and the second location will be on
the west side of the baseball field near Jacaranda Road. These pressure reducing stations will be
located below grade.
Water System Assessment
The FMP Utilities Appendix includes the following summary findings and recommendations regarding
future water utility infrastructure:
•
All existing water lines should be located using pot-holing prior to preparation of any plans.
•
All of the existing pipelines that are no longer in service should be removed so they will not
interfere with new construction.
•
Most of the existing water pipes will near their design life span before the completion of the
FMP buildout condition, and the entire domestic water system should be replaced with new
PVC pipes, giving the system a new design life of at least 100 years.
•
As an alternative to full system replacement, the College could regularly inspect, test and
monitor in order to determine when a section of existing line needs to be replaced. Work
would be scheduled so it will not interrupt the regular school sessions.
The impact significance criterion cited above is not whether new water utility infrastructure will be
constructed or expanded. As with all infrastructure, that is a given in order to ensure proper service.
Rather, the criterion focuses on the nature of those improvements and whether by placement or the
act of construction, those facilities "…could cause significant environmental effects." Similar to the
discussion on the provision of new or expanded public services and facilities (see Section 3.10),
"significant environmental effects" would result from substantial adverse physical impacts related to
construction. Physical environmental impacts may include those related to traffic, air quality, noise,
biological and cultural resources, water quality, etc. Insofar as the potential environmental effects of
FMP implementation and on-Campus construction have been analyzed and mitigated at the
programmatic level, the EIR has adequately evaluated planned improvements to water infrastructure.
Water Supplies
•
The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements are not needed.
As indicated previously, the MWA expects that the groundwater basins will remain capable of
meeting annual water demands through dry years and consecutive multiple dry years.4 Although the
project includes the development of new building and facilities pursuant to the FMP, it is not
necessary for the College to obtain new or expanded entitlements.
4
Supplement A: 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update, p. 42
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
The RWQCB, in its comment on the Notice of Preparation, requested that the EIR for this project
carefully evaluate water supply, water recycling options, and wastewater treatment. Given the 20year buildout period, specific usage projections are of little value. However, Section 3.9 (Hydrology
and Water Quality) outlines some of the FMP strategies to minimize water usage and maximize reuse
opportunities. The FMP further plans to reduce overall water consumption and wastewater
generation in buildings with the following strategies:
•
Replace plumbing fixtures to meet or exceed the performance requirements of the Energy
Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992.
•
Use infrared faucet sensors and delayed action shut-off or automatic mechanical shut-off
valves.
•
Use waterless urinals or 0.5 gallons per flush urinals.
•
Use dual flush toilets.
•
Use low flow toilets with a siphon jet.
•
Use low flow kitchen faucets and shower heads.
•
Automated controls in public spaces
The FMP also addresses the need for water conservation by establishing goals and strategies for
irrigation efficiency and the use of alternate water sources, as follows:
•
Reduce the use of potable water for landscape irrigation by:
o
Integrating irrigation strategies with storm water design.
o
Selecting native vegetation, climate-adapted vegetation and drought-resistive plants.
o
Using high-efficiency irrigation systems that utilized drip irrigation, moisture sensors,
and/or timers instead of more conventional systems (measure appropriateness through
life-cycle cost analysis).
o
Incorporating gray water systems when possible.
o
Using recirculating water in fountains and water displays.
o
Using gray water, stormwater, or harvested rainwater for waste conveyance and/or
irrigation.
The FMP strategies listed will ensure that water supply impacts are less than significant.
3.11.3.2 Wastewater Utilities
•
The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
The previously cited FMP strategies for reducing overall water consumption and wastewater
generation in all Campus facilities will ensure that future wastewater generation is minimized. As
necessary to support Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority's planned expansion of
treatment capacity to reach its recycled water use goal of 1.4 MGD in 2020, the College might need
to address fair-share funding through its normal budgeting and capital improvements programs in
the future. However, since no significant wastewater generation impacts are reasonably anticipated,
no mitigation is required at this time.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
Proposed Wastewater Facilities
•
The Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
According to the FMP, when the proposed FMP buildout is fully implemented, the original sewer
system will have exceeded it designed life span; therefore, new conveyance facilities are necessary.
The proposed sewer system will generally parallel the proposed domestic water system. It will be
divided between the Upper and Lower Campus systems, which will be allocated to serve several
primary Campus zones (see Exhibit C-3 of the FMP Utilities Appendix). All proposed 8-inch PVC sewer
lines will converge near the existing fire station at the north end of Fish Hatchery Road, then continue
north and connect to an existing public main at the north end of Campus.
Insofar as major water and sewer upgrades will occur simultaneously and/or within the same utility
corridors, the impact assessment for domestic water utilities applies to sewer infrastructure as well.
Since the potential environmental effects of FMP implementation and on-Campus construction have
been analyzed and mitigated at the programmatic level, the EIR has adequately evaluated planned
improvements to sewer infrastructure.
•
The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The RWQCB did not raise specific concerns about wastewater treatment requirements in its NOP
comment letter, and no other related concerns are known at this time. The Initial Study (p. 4-29)
states, "The proposed project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
(NPDES) permit requirements in compliance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board and this issue will not be examined further in
the EIR."
3.11.3.3 Solid Waste Facilities
•
The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
The Initial Study (p. 4-30) states, "The College complies with all applicable laws and regulations
related to solid waste generation, collection, and disposal including applicable waste reduction
requirements. The development of additional campus facilities as part of the project would continue
to comply with all statutes and regulation related to solid waste. Therefore, this issue will not be
examined further in the EIR."
•
The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
The Initial Study (p. 4-30) indicates the following regarding solid waste disposal capacity:
The project components would contribute solid waste from construction and long-term
operation. Waste generated during construction would include scrap lumber, packaging
materials, plastics and inert waste (i.e., wastes that are not likely to produce leachates of
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-6
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
environmental concern, such as dirt, concrete, asphalt, rocks, building materials, etc.).
Excavation of earth materials and removal of debris resulting from demolition activities
would be disposed of at local landfills or nearby construction sites requiring additional fill
material. It is also expected that construction-related wastes would be recycled, in
accordance with current County and City recycling and waste reduction programs. Typically,
construction waste occurs over a short period of time and ceases following completion of the
construction phase. The amount of waste generated from short-term construction would not
be considered substantial. Therefore, construction impacts on the existing local landfill
capacities are considered to be less than significant. However, operation of the project has
the potential to contribute to significant solid waste impacts.
Disposal capacity at the Victorville Landfill has already been established at 300,000 tons per year,
with an anticipated site life of 20 years (City of Victorville 2007). Estimated generation rates for the
various FMP facilities are not presently available. However, the FMP adheres to sustainable design
goals, including conservation of natural resources, increased use of sustainable products, and
minimization of waste through reducing, reusing, and recycling. Future VVC projects will specifically
reduce waste from construction, renovation and demolition projects, as well as operations, through
the following:
•
Adaptive reuse of existing structures instead of new construction when possible.
•
Use of durable materials to extend building life span.
•
Specification of materials from companies that incorporate reclamation programs such as
ceiling tiles and carpet.
•
Use of recyclable materials.
•
Minimization of waste associated with future reconfiguration of interior offices by designing
open office environments and using flexible furniture systems.
•
Requirements for contractors to incorporate a construction waste management plan that
diverts waste from landfills.
•
Keeping greenwaste out of the landfill by selecting appropriate plants to reduce pruning,
using plant trimmings as mulch and compost, and grasscycling.
Aside from the value achieved by conserving landfill capacity and limiting the land disturbance
effects of expanding such facilities, the FMP materials use strategies and operational practices will
have other environmental benefits. For instance, by using locally manufactured materials (i.e., within
500-mile radius of Campus, require 20 percent minimum of materials to be manufactured and 10
percent of raw materials to be harvested), energy use and pollution associated with material
transportation would be minimized. Similarly, by calculating life-cycle costs and comparing the initial
cost, service life costs, and the annual maintenance costs over a 50-year life span, the College can
ensure the use of materials with a long service life, thereby reducing product turnover and disposal
rates as well.
If implemented as planned, the FMP would substantially reduce the College's contribution to landfill
disposal, waste production, and energy consumption. These are environmental benefits that do not
require mitigation.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-7
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.11.4
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
No impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required.
3.11.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
No mitigation measures are required.
3.11.6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As demonstrated throughout the EIR and the FMP itself, the College's commitment to environmental
sustainability, resource conservation, and waste reduction will provide positive cumulative impacts in
the areas of water consumption, wastewater generation, and solid waste reduction. No adverse
cumulative impacts would result.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.11-8
3.12 A ESTHETICS
3.12.1
EXISTING SETTING
3.12.1.1 Viewsheds and Visual Receptors
The project site is an existing college campus. The visual character of the VVC Campus is primarily
institutional with residential land uses in a commercial area. The visual field is an urbanized desert
setting composed of natural features including a backdrop of mountain ranges to the east and a
partial view of the dry riverbed of the Mojave River. Surrounding residents have views of developed
structures including college buildings on the Upper Campus and recreational fields on the Lower
Campus.
3.12.1.2 State Scenic Highway Designation
The VVC Campus is not located within a California State Scenic Highway viewshed, as designated on
the California Scenic Highway Mapping System.1 Since FMP implementation has no potential to
affect scenic resources within a State scenic highway viewshed, the issue requires no further
discussion in this Draft EIR.
3.12.1.3 Light and Glare Sources
Both external and internal illumination are already in place in buildings on the VVC Campus and
along the local roadways in the vicinity. Likewise, various types of lighting are present in the singlefamily and multi-family homes located northwest and southwest of the College. Other suburban uses
include the Spring Valley Lake Country Club located north of the Campus. To the east of the campus
is undeveloped land, the Mojave River natural desert wash, and suburban development.
3.12.2
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist),
significant aesthetic impacts would result if the Proposed Project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
1
California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. 2008. Accessed at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.12-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.12.3
3.12 Aesthetics
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
3.12.3.1 Viewsheds and Visual Character
• The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• The Proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
The proposed project would add new buildings and facilities to the existing Victor Valley College
campus. The FMP provides illustrative planning concepts for new roadways, parking layout, building
shapes, site planning, landscape planning, pedestrian pathways, environmental graphics and
Campus infrastructure plans. Implementation of the FMP would result in changes in the location and
appearances of structures throughout the Campus. However, the overall appearance would remain
consistent with that of a college campus. Vistas of the Campus from higher elevations would change
but would be similar to the impacts currently presented by the existing location of the College.
As indicated previously, the VVC Campus is not within a State Scenic Highway corridor. Moreover, no
scenic vistas within the project area have been identified in the City of Victorville General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a less than significant impact on a designated
scenic vista.
• The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings.
The Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings because the existing VVC Campus has been located at this site for over 40
years and is now part of the existing visual character and quality. The Proposed Project would not
result in the degradation of the existing visual character or quality. Although Victorville has many
mountain vistas, these viewsheds would not be adversely affected by the proposed FMP
improvements.
The proposed project would add new buildings and facilities to the existing Victor Valley College
campus, as illustrated throughout the FMP. The proposed development is designed to enhance
visual character and quality on Campus. The Facilities Master Plan was developed to create, in part,
an aesthetically and architecturally cohesive campus as well as to foster an environmentally
responsible campus environment. Development pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan would add a
variety of new building and facilities to the Campus that will result in visual changes, but no adverse
effects.
3.12.3.2 Light and Glare
• The Proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The existing VVC Campus and surrounding urban development are already a source of light and glare
in the project vicinity, albeit not intrusive at present. The new structures and parking areas will also
be a source of light and glare. However, due to the urbanized nature of the project vicinity and the
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.12-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.12 Aesthetics
FMP's provisions for minimizing additional light and glare, new Campus development is not expected
to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The FMP provides for varied placement and types of site lighting in ways that minimize light pollution
while meeting lighting and security needs. To reduce light pollution, the FMP proposes to minimize
uplighting and reduce site lighting requirements to 1 foot candle to lower the amount light that spills
across the site. Light levels will not exceed IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America)
requirements.
The collegiate athletic fields will have a new 2,000 seat, lighted stadium with a football field and an
NCAA regulation size running track. The interior of the stadium will be shielded by the stadium’s
architecture and surrounding trees. Lighting will be focused on the playing field and light spillage
controlled. The collegiate baseball field will remain at its present location and the collegiate softball
field will be relocated and reoriented according to the NCAA design guidelines. New lighting will be
provided for the collegiate baseball and softball fields.
As per the FMP lighting criteria, all site and outdoor lighting will be full cutoff type. Existing outdoor
lighting will be replaced to provide for full cutoff. Parking areas will also have lighting for security and
wayfinding. Pole type lighting will be full-cutoff type. Path lighting will be bollard type or in-ground,
and landscape lighting will be in-ground. Both types are low, shielded, and/or have limited areas of
illumination. All outdoor lights will have astronomical timers and photocell controls. These criteria will
prevent diffuse light spillover outside the Campus boundaries. In addition, all new and renovated
buildings will have occupancy sensors and automatic daylighting controls, which will minimize
unnecessary internal illumination and nighttime visual disturbance. The FMP standards and
provisions for controlling light spillover and light pollution will maintain related impacts at levels that
are less than significant.
In partnership with Chevron, the VVC Facilities Master Plan includes a solar energy research field that
the Initial Study indicated could create a new source of substantial glare that could potentially affect
day views in the area. While flat silicon surfaces are normally highly reflective, various anti-reflective
coatings are available and can reduce the amount of average reflection in the wavelengths of light
solar power cells use by 85 percent to 92 percent. Photovoltaic panels can also have glare-resistant
tempered glass cover to minimize reflected light. When also considering the southern orientation of
the solar farm panels, reflected sunlight would not be directed toward any of the residents north of
the Campus, nor would it affect viewers elsewhere. Potential glare impacts are thus determined to be
less than significant.
3.12.4
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no potential visual impacts associated with the Proposed Project based on the thresholds
of significance for aesthetics. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
3.12.5
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Proposed Project will not result in significant adverse impacts with regard to aesthetics. No
mitigation measures are required.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.12-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
3.12.6
3.12 Aesthetics
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of Victorville within the visual context of
residential and commercial development. The VVC Campus is a long-standing part of the visual
setting of the Project vicinity. There are no viewshed or scenic resources that would be affected by
the Proposed Project, either individually or cumulatively.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 3.12-4
4.0 P ROJECT A LTERNATIVES
4.1
INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires than an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project and are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or would be more
costly. The “rule of reason” under State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) requires that the EIR address
only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. These alternatives must foster
informed decision-making and public participation. The EIR must also provide the rationale for the
selection of the alternatives.
4.2
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The definition and selection of alternatives must consider how the alternative fulfills the project
objectives and how the alternative either reduces significant, unavoidable impacts or substantially
reduces the impacts to the surrounding environment. Those criteria are key to the following analysis
and clearly limit the scope of this chapter. As indicated in Section 2.2 (Project Background), the
College began the Facilities Master Plan process with a team of educational and site planners,
engineers, architects, and other specialized consultants evaluating a range of issues including
traffic, utilities, infrastructure, geotechnical constraints, energy technologies, and space planning
and design. Site plan options were presented to VVC faculty, staff, students and administrators,
public officials, and the public through a series of workshops. Comments and input directly shaped
the final Site Plan design scheme that was ultimately selected by Campus-wide vote, and which
reflects a thorough consideration of alternatives meeting VVC's future educational and physical
needs. The FMP design concepts and facilities plans provide a functional Campus that is responsive
to health and safety, land use planning, and environmental considerations.
Informed decision-making and public participation have been a guiding principle in Campus design
and FMP development. It is with this iterative stakeholder-driven design process in mind that the
range of project alternatives warrants a limited scope under CEQA. Further limiting the scope of
reasonable alternatives is the fact that all but one of the impacts identified in Chapter 3.0 as
potentially significant are deemed to be less than significant with mitigation. No project alternative
would substantially lessen or avoid those same potentially significant effects since they are common
to all scenarios that would involve the expansion and/or replacement of Campus facilities.
4.3
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Facilities Master Plan upholds the goals of the Educational Master Plan, which includes offering
academic and vocational education to students at the lower college division level. In addition, the
District’s goal is to advance California’s economic growth and global competitiveness through
education, training, and services that contribute to continuous workforce improvement.
The FMP is intended to be a “Living Document” subject to change in the future and "designed to
enable the College to edit sections based on future conditions that may affect the College decisions
and directions." Anticipating those future conditions, the FMP evaluates existing land, infrastructure,
facilities and systems in relationship to the College's educational purposes, plans and needs,
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 4-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.0 Project Alternatives
specifying the capital outlay projects necessary to meet these needs. Some overall objectives
include:
•
•
•
•
4.4
Accommodating future enrollments,
Improving structural safety,
Mitigating against known natural hazards, and
Producing measurable environmental benefits through sustainable development.
SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Proposed Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in Chapter 3.0
(Environmental Analysis). The analysis found that all potentially significant impacts could be
mitigated to below a level of significance, with the exception of PM10 emissions associated with
vehicular trips during long-term site occupancy. No other impacts were identified as unavoidable and
adverse after mitigation.
The unavoidable PM10 emissions resulting from vehicular trips are unmitigable by any single project
since they relate to the nature of travel throughout Victor Valley. That is, the sheer number of vehicle
trips, destinations, and the distances traveled are cumulative in the air basin and it is that level of
vehicular activity that cannot be completely mitigated by the College, either as project conditions or
by proposing alternatives to the FMP. The measures outlined in Section 3.3 (Air Quality) reduce
project-related emissions to the maximum extent feasible.
4.5
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
4.5.1
No Project
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(1) states “the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project
alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of not approving the proposed
project.” Under the No Project alternative, the FMP would not be implemented and the VVC Campus
would not be fully developed with new academic, vocational, recreational or administrative facilities,
nor would it be improved to accommodate more parking and more efficient circulation. Classes
would continue to be offered at the VVC Campus, but future enrollment demand would not be met.
Because the project-related unavoidable impact of long-term mobile-source PM10 emissions are not
feasibly reduced by any land use alternative, the No Project is not an environmentally superior
alternative, nor is it desirable since it would not offer an environmentally sustainable option for VVC
Campus development. This alternative would not meet basic project objectives and does not warrant
further consideration.
4.5.2
Alternative Site Design – Existing Loop Road Alternate
This alternative is presented in the FMP and would primarily provide functional and aesthetic
variations on the northwest portion of the Campus, as shown on Figure 4-**. This alternative is a
component of the FMP and meets all project objectives. The site design maintains the existing loop
road alignment throughout the Campus, and places the manufacturing micro-community in the
existing hillside area south of the golf course. The auto, welding and construction shop would be
located in a valley and partially cut into the hillside, enabling its large size to be concealed and its
roof to be designed as an extension of the hilltop with an area for a garden plaza. Among other
building configuration changes described in the FMP, this alternative would affect the Campus
parking layout yet would still meet all on-site parking requirements. This alternative would not affect
site planning for the eastern half of the Campus.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 4-2
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
4.0 Project Alternatives
FIGURE 4-1: EXISTING LOOP ROAD ALTERNATE
All environmental factors being relatively equal, the decision to implement all or a portion of this
alternative is at the discretion of the College, subject to space/site planning needs, costs, enrollment
projections, and other factors not within the purview of this EIR.
4.5.3
Alternative Site Design – Optional Housing Component
The FMP includes an optional housing component that consists of approximately 160-units of
dormitory facilities for students and faculty at one of two possible locations on campus. These
dormitories would provide an estimated 248 beds thereby accommodating up to 248 people
(students and faculty). These facilities would be public/private partnerships with the developers to
build and manage student housing complexes on the College property. The housing complex would
be designed to meet the College’s design and administrative criteria and regulations. Figure 4-2
illustrates the locations of potential Campus housing facilities.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 4-3
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.0 Project Alternatives
As a component of the proposed FMP, this alternative would meet all of the project objectives and
would be subject to the same design and environmental criteria to be applied to all future FMP
development. This alternative would generally have the same types and levels of impacts as a
Campus development without housing, though it would slightly reduce commuting trips for those
residing on Campus. Despite that trip reduction, this alternative would not reduce or avoid any
identified environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Source: 2007-2017 Facilities Master Plan
4.5.4
FIGURE 4-2: OPTIONAL HOUSING COMPONENT LOCATIONS
Peach Avenue Extension Alternative (City of Victorville)
The City of Victorville is proposing to extend Peach Avenue northeasterly from Bear Valley Road to
Spring Valley Parkway and reconfigure Spring Valley Parkway just west of the VVC Campus. The City
of Victorville would design and approve that roadway project in consultation with adjacent land
owners, including Victor Valley College. Under CEQA, the City would act as lead agency and would be
responsible for conducting field studies and preparing environmental documentation. This
alternative is briefly summarized for the benefit of VVC decision-makers since reconfiguration could
affect the constraints and opportunities for Campus development along its western boundary.
As shown on Figure 4-3, the City proposes to extend Peach Avenue north of Bear Valley Road within
an 84-foot right-of-way, which would accommodate four travel lanes (two in each direction) and 10foot parkways along either side. The Peach Avenue extension would cross Francesca Road and
create a "T" intersection with Lindero Street before joining Spring Valley Parkway. Figure 4-3 shows
that the project would create two other smaller "T" intersections along its proposed alignment; would
create an eastbound dead-end on Francesca Road; and would presumably result in vacation of an
approximately 440-foot segment of the Spring Valley Parkway right-of-way between Francesca Road
and Lindero Street.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 4-4
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.0 Project Alternatives
CDC Way
Lindero St.
Peach Ave.
Source: City of Victorville
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
Spring
Peach Ave.
Valley
Pkwy.
Francesca Rd.
Bear Valley Rd.
FIGURE 4-3: PEACH AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT
December 2008
Page 4-5
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
4.0 Project Alternatives
Combined with widening along the north side of Bear Valley Road, the project would create a new
signalized intersection approximately 500 feet west of the existing Spring Valley Parkway intersection
at Bear Valley Road. The new Peach Avenue/Bear Valley Road intersection leg would serve as a
secondary access to the VVC Campus and would allow for left-turn in and left-turn out movements,
as well as north/southbound through movements on Peach. Right in/right out movements at the
new northern leg would be facilitated by tapered deceleration/acceleration lanes. The project would
enable the College to restrict turning movements at Spring Valley Parkway and Bear Valley Road to
right in/right out only, though it would be necessary for the College and City to evaluate potential
westbound traffic flow conflicts between vehicles turning right and accelerating from Spring Valley
Parkway and those decelerating and merging right to turn north on Peach Avenue.
The City's proposed project does not appear to negatively affect the College as it would maintain
Campus access at Francesca Road and CDC Way, while also improving traffic flow and safety along
Bear Valley Road.
Although some of the information in this EIR is pertinent to the City's project, this EIR does not
evaluate the City's project for CEQA compliance since it would have effects related to right-of-way
acquisitions, biological habitat disturbance, circulation patterns and traffic controls, existing and
future land uses, and drainage and water quality, among others.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 4-6
5.0 G ROWTH -I NDUCING I MPACTS
CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d) requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth.”
The analysis of growth inducement must also discuss ways in which the Proposed Project may
encourage or facilitate other activities that may significantly affect the environment, individually or
cumulatively. Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when a project might impose new burdens on a
community or might induce new development in an area, triggering related growth-associated
impacts. An example is the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant. Indirect growth inducement
results from related multiplier effects whereby additional growth is induced by the demand for
housing, goods, and services associated with a project.
The Proposed Project is the completion of a Facilities Master Plan, resulting in the expansion of an
existing community college campus to serve existing and projected educational demands. The
Proposed Project would not impose significant new burdens on adjacent land uses or induce
substantial new unforeseeable development in the area. The Proposed Project is adjacent to existing
infrastructure and will not induce additional growth in the area. The surrounding land is already
developed and the Campus will not be expanded in terms of its boundary or geographic location in
the community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly induce growth in the region.
Other growth expected to be indirectly induced by the Proposed Project would be of an economic
nature. Education opportunities could result in increased job opportunities for students and local
residents, which would be an additional indirect beneficial economic growth inducement from the
Proposed Project.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 5-1
6.0 A GENCIES AND P ERSONS C ONSULTED
6.1
VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (LEAD AGENCY)
•
•
6.2
Stephen R. Garcia, Director of Facilities, Construction and Contracts
Michelle Messer, Administrative Secretary, Facilities Construction & Public
Information
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Carrier Johnson (Facilities Master Plan)
•
Daniel Oyakawa
Chevron Energy Solutions Company (Comprehensive Energy Analysis)
•
6.3
Ashu Jain, P.E., C.E.M.
EIR PREPARERS AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
RGP Planning and Development Services (EIR Preparation)
•
Susan Lamoureux, Principal, EIR Project Manager
o
B.A., History and Political Science, Chapman University
o
M.A., Social Ecology/Planning and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine
o
Professional Certificate in Public Participation, International Association for
Public Participation (IAP2)
o
Professional Certificate in Environmental Auditing, University of California,
Irvine
o
Professional Affiliations:
ƒ American Planning Association (APA), Charter Member
ƒ Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), Charter Member
o
35 years of experience as a planning and environmental consultant
specializing in CEQA/NEPA documentation and project management
•
Mike DeVore, Senior Associate
o
B.A., Geography, California State University, Fullerton
o
M.S., Environmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton
o
Professional Certificate in Geographic Information Systems, University of
California, Riverside
o
Professional Affiliations:
ƒ Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
o
17 years of experience in project management, environmental planning, and
GIS analysis
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 6-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
•
6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted
Tim Brillhart, Graphic Designer
o
Art Institute of Seattle, Visual Communications
o
15 years of experience in design, illustration, photography, and digital art
media
o
Professional Affiliations include:
ƒ National Society of Illustrators
Synectecology (Air Quality)
•
Toddy Brody, Principal
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Biological/Cultural Resources)
•
•
•
Michael Tuma, Natural Resources Program Manager
Taya Cummins, Project Manager
Caprice D. Harper, M.A., RPA
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 6-2
7.0 R EFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. September 2005.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Bernardino County Important Farmland
2004.
_____. 2006. Williamson Act Status Report.
California Department of Fish and Game. March 2007. Rarefind 3: A Database Application for the
Use of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Base, Version 3.1.0.
California Department of Transportation. Revised July 31, 2003. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 CMAQ
Projects. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/federal/cmaq/
Carrier-Johnson. 2007. Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan 2007.
Chevron Energy Solutions. 2005. Response to Victor Valley College Questions Dated 12/5/05.
Accessed at http://www.vvc.edu/staff/FFG.htm
_____. 2007. Comprehensive Energy Analysis for Victor Valley College, Section 1. Executive
Summary.
City of Victorville. 2007. General Plan, as amended through Amendment PLN07-00052, Resolution
07-170, Adopted 6/26/07.
_____.
2008. Municipal Code (current through Ordinance
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/victorville/.
2219).
Accessed
at
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Final Adopted 2006 Regional Transportation Program (RTIP)
With Approved Amendments 1-5 and 7, Local Projects, County of San Bernardino. Accessed
at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs
ICF Jones & Stokes. August 2008. Department of Fish and Game Hatchery EIR/EIS Environmental
Checklist.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates. March 2007. Traffic Study for the Victor Valley College Master Plan in the
City of Victorville.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. January 3, 2006. Geotechnical and Geologic Review and Limited
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Victor Valley College Master Plan, 18422
Bear Valley Road, Victorville, California.
Mojave Water Agency. September 2004. 2004 Regional Water Management Plan, Volume 1: Report.
Adopted February 24, 2005.
_____. December 2005. Supplement A: 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 7-1
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
7.0 References
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1995. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County,
California, Mojave River Area. Web Soil Survey 1.1. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Parsons. October 2007. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Wind Turbine at Victor Valley
Community College.
Victor Valley Community College. March 2008. Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration for 1-Megawatt Wind Turbine.
Victor Valley Community College District, Victor Valley College. Educational Master Plan 1998-2005+.
Victor Valley Community College District. August 2006. 2008-12 Five Year Construction Plan (200809 First Funding Year).
Victorville Daily Press. October 7, 2007. VVC president signs climate commitment. Accessed at
http://www.vvdailypress.com/
Wieland Associates, Inc. November 2004. Environmental Noise Study for the Glendale Community
College Master Plan.
Victor Valley College Facilities Master Plan
Victor Valley Community College District
December 2008
Page 7-2