Agenda, regular meeting — Adelanto City Council, October 11, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that it meets all requirements of Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Adelanto Municipal Code, which implements the General Plan.
(c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The proposed site is physically suitable for the development in that the proposed tentative parcel map is to create individual legal lots for the hotel, the convenience store and the car wash.
(d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The proposed site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development in that the proposed tentative parcel map is for the purpose of creating legal lots for the hotel and convenience store, the restaurant, retail development and the car wash.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and/or injure fish or wildlife and no physical alterations are proposed. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems in that no physical alterations are proposed.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that all easements have been identified and no conflicts have been identified. .
(h) The proposed subdivision does not harm the housing needs of the region and provides public services to the residents
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council this 11nd day of October, 2023. 223
RESOLUTION NO. 23-72
October 11, 2023

Page 6 ends

____________________________________
___________________________

GABRIEL REYES, MAYOR
ATTEST:
------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________

BRENDA LOPEZ, CITY CLERK CMC
I, Brenda Lopez, City Clerk of the City of Adelanto, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-72 was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Adelanto on the 11nd day of October, 2023, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the City of Adelanto on the 11nd day of October, 2023.
___________________________________
Brenda Lopez, CMC
City Clerk
SEAL
224
RESOLUTION NO. 23-72
October 11, 2023

Page 7 ends

225
Attachment A

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution P-21-23
RESOLUTION NO. P-23-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ADELANTO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MAKING

FINDINGS, ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (IS/MND) AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-19, LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22-15 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20607 TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING
CENTER DEVELOPMENT. THERE WOULD BE A TOTAL OF FIVE

PARCELS SUBDIVIDED FROM THE CURRENT FOUR PARCELS,
TOTALLING 11.81 ACRES, INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. PARCEL A WOULD BE A 5,866 SQUARE FOOT
CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 945 SQUARE FOOT UPPER-LEVEL
OFFICE AND A 20 PUMP FUELING STATION. PARCEL B WOULD BE A 3,400 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT. PARCEL C WOULD BE A 10,500 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING, A 16,702 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET AND ANOTHER 9,620 SQUARE FOOT
MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING. PARCEL D WOULD BE A 5,577 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMATED CARWASH. PARCEL E WOULD BE A
68,054 SQUARE FOOT THREE-STORY HOTEL (100 ROOMS). THE SITE’S ACCESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS ARE 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459- 053-58, AND 0459-053- 08 WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF AIRPORT

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (ADD), BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr. Gus Otaki, representing AUBURN TRAVEL CENTER LLC has proposed a Conditional Use Permit to establish a hotel with 100 suites, a sit down restaurant and rooftop bar (including two Type 47 ABC onsite Liquor licenses) and a grocery store and convenience store both selling beer and wine (including two Type 21 ABC offsite Liquor Licenses) and a Location and Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map to create five (5) separate parcels and to construct a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office and a 20 pump fueling station, a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant, a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building, a 16,702 square foot supermarket , another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building , a 5,577 square feet automated carwash and a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) along with parking facilities, landscaping, and other improvements on a 11.81-acre site in the Airport Development District (ADD) zoning district located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 395 and Auburn Ave, (APNs: 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053- 08 ) within the City of Adelanto, County of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has consented to all conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Adelanto Planning Commission on September 6, 2023, to hear and consider testimony for or against the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Adelanto, as lead agency, determined that a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project should be prepared for adoption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Guidelines; and 226
RESOLUTION NO. P-23-17
September 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct.

SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information included in the staff report prior to acting on proposed Conditional Use Permit 22-18, Location and Development Plan 22-15 and Tentative Parcel Map 20607. The Planning Commission further finds and determines that the City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Commission determinations reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that:

Conditional Use Permit 22-19
(a) That the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest or injurious to nearby properties and that the spirit and intent of this Section will be observed; The proposed uses will not be contrary to the public interested or injurious to the nearby properties in that alcohol sales will occur on the premises of the convenience store use; the hotel use provides a needed service and observes all zoning code regulations; the car wash use provides a needed service and observes all zoning code regulations.
(b) That the proposed use will not enlarge or encourage the development of a blighted area;
The proposed uses will not enlarge or encourage the development of a blighted area, in that the uses are designed and conditioned to meet all zoning code, fire code and other affected agency regulations.
(c) That the establishment of an additional regulated use in the area will not be contrary to any program of neighborhood conservation nor will it interfere with any other city program;
The proposed uses will not be contrary to any program of neighborhood conservation or interfere with any City program in that the uses have been conditioned to meet all local regulations.
(d) That all applicable regulations of the zoning district in which the use is permitted will be observed.

The proposed uses have been conditioned to meet all applicable regulations of the BP Zoning District.
(e) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan; The project is consistent with the General Plan as the site is designated ADD, which is consistent with Appendix A of Title 17 of the Zoning Code which allows for a hotel use with greater than 50 rooms, and a convenience store selling wine and beer with the approval of a conditional use permit. 227
RESOLUTION NO. P-23-17
September 6, 2023

Page 3 ends

(f) That the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The adjacent and surrounding property will be developed as Business Park uses and the proposed use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
(g) That the site for the proposed use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
The overall site is approximately 11.81-acres in size, which far exceeds the minimum 20,000 square feet required in the Business Park (BP) zoning district and has sufficient width and depth to meet all required setbacks to accommodate the proposed uses.
(h) That the proposed use complies with all applicable development standards of the zoning district; and
The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to meet all applicable City zoning and development standards.
(i) That the proposed use observes the spirit and intent of this Zoning Code.

The proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. However, to ensure all Code requirements are met, a condition of approval has been added reflecting these requirements.

Location and Development Plan 22-15
(a) That the proposed Location and Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan;
The project is consistent with the General Plan as the site is designated Airport Development District (ADD) which is consistent with Title 17 of the Zoning Code, which allows for the proposed uses in the ADD zoning district with an approved Location and Development Plan.
(b) That the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, in that surrounding properties to the south and east are both currently vacant land, and land to the north and west is highway and also zoned as Airport Development District and highway uses. Thus, the proposed project will be compatible with future uses.
(c) That the site for the proposed use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
228
RESOLUTION NO. P-23-17
September 6, 2023

Page 4 ends

The overall site is approximately 11.81-acres in size, which exceeds the minimum 20,000 square feet required in the Airport Development District zoning district and is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and proposed building and improvements.
(d) That the proposed use complies with all applicable development standards of the zoning district; and
The proposed project has been designed and conditioned to meet all applicable City zoning and development standards for the Commercial zoning district. (e) That the proposed use observes the spirit and intent of this Zoning Code.

The proposed project meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. In addition, to ensure all Code requirements are met, conditions of approval have been added requiring that the project meet code requirements.

Tentative Parcel Map 20607
(a) That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed tentative parcel map project is consistent with the General Plan as the site is designated Airport Development (ADD) which allows for the proposed use and as conditioned the proposed design and required improvements will be compatible with existing uses, which have the same designation. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that it meets all requirements of Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Adelanto Municipal Code, which implements the General Plan.
(c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The proposed site is physically suitable for the development in that the proposed tentative parcel map is to create individual legal lots for the hotel, the convenience store and the car wash.
(d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

Page 5 ends

(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and/or injure fish or wildlife and no physical alterations are proposed. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems in that no physical alterations are proposed. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that all easements have been identified and no conflicts have been identified.
. (h) The proposed subdivision does not harm the housing needs of the region and provides public services to the residents
ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A (Attachment B): Conditions of Approval CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 and TPM 20607 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Adelanto Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 22-19, Location and Development Plan 22-15 and Tentative Parcel Map 20607subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit “A” (Attachment B) attached to this Resolution and by this reference incorporated herein.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission this 6th day of September 2023.
___________________________________
Chris Waggener
Chairman of the Planning Commission
___________________________________
Nyeka Allen
Secretary to the Planning Commission
230
RESOLUTION NO. P-23-17
September 6, 2023

Page 6 ends

I, Nyeka Allen, Planning Secretary for the Planning Commission of the City of Adelanto, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. P-23-17 was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Adelanto on the 6th day of September 2023, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: Chair Waggener, Vice-Chair Delgado, Commissioner Ferretiz, Rubalcava NOES: none
ABSENT: Commissioner Brandt
ABSTAIN: none
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the City of Adelanto on the 6th day of September 2023.
___________________________________
Nyeka Allen
Secretary to the Planning Commission
231
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 1 Comprehensive Application (Revised 12.22.2022)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW AND LAND USE APPROVAL
CASE NUMBER: _________________________
DATE SUBMITTED: _________________________
APN(s) #: .

APPLICATION TYPE FEE* APPLICATION TYPE FEE*
PRELIMINARY REVIEW $1,212.00 _____ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT $5,540.00 _____

CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT(CUP)
$4,861.00 _____ ZONE CHANGE $5,540.00 _____
MINOR CUP $2,430.00 _____ ZONE CODE AMENDMENT $6,049.00 _____

LOCATION &

DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(LDP)
$4,861.00 _____ SPECIFIC PLAN $6,898.00 _____
MINOR LDP $2,430.00 _____ SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT $4,352.00 _____

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT*
$2,230.00 VARIANCE
MAJOR
MINOR
$2,485.00
$1,636.00
_____
_____

TENTATIVE PARCEL

MAP (TPM)
$3,503.00 _____ MODIFICATION
MAJOR
MINOR
$2,824.00
$1,752.00
_____
_____
TPM AMENDMENT $1,806.00 _____

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
(TTM)
$4,861.00+
$60.00/lot
_____ APPEAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION to PC $1,806.00 _____
TTM AMENDMENT $2,824.00 _____ PC DECISION to CITY COUNCIL

$2,146.00 _____

DENSITY BONUS

AGREEMENT
$4,352.00 _____ TIME EXTENSION $2,146.00 _____
FILING FEE 85.00 _____
*ADDITIONAL FEES:

San Bernardino County (SBC) Fire fees will be billed separately by SBC at the time your project is submitted & reviewed by the Fire Department. Plans must be uploaded separately through SBC EZ Online permitting system, “EZ Online Permitting Citizen Access Portal.” The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to all discretionary “projects” and all applicants must complete an Environmental Assessment and submit an Environmental Assessment Fee of $2,230.00 as part of the land use approval application process. The appropriate CEQA determination must be made by a qualified environmental consulting firm, which shall be hired and paid for by the applicant. The City has established a list of qualified consultants, which is available at the front counter of the Development Services Department. Once a project is approved by the designated decisionmaking body a Notice of Exemption (NOE) or Notice of Determination (NOD) must be filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Separate filing fees apply.

LDP 22-15;CUP 22-19; TPM 20607
September 14, 2023
0459-053-56, -053-57, -053-58 and -053-08
Please see attached letter setting forth grounds for appeal. 232
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 2 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
Applicant/Contact Person: Company:

Telephone No. (____) Fax No. (____) E-mail:

Mailing Address:

STREET CITY STATE ZIP
Owner /Contact Person: Company:

Telephone No. (____) Fax No. (____) E-mail:

Mailing Address:

STREET CITY STATE ZIP
Arch-Eng/Contact Person: Company:

Telephone No. (____) Fax No. (____) E-mail:

Mailing Address:

STREET CITY STATE ZIP
Complete Project Description/Reason for Request: If necessary, attach a detailed description to explain all proposed uses for this property or project.

General location or address location:

Assessor’s Parcel No(s):

Township: Range: Section Number:

Acreage: Zoning: RDA Project Area: _____
Associated Case(s): _______
_______
Rick Franco on behalf of CARE CA Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 650 589-1660 [email protected]
601 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 1000 South San Francisco CA 94080 The proposed project site is located east of US 395, north of Barcelona Ave, south of Auburn Ave, and west of Montezuma Street in Adelanto. 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08
The Project proposes construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development, including a 100-room hotel, gas station, supermarket, car wash and retail. CARE CA appeals the decisions/actions appeal are set forth in the accompanying letter.

Appellant
taken by the Adelanto Planning Commission at its September 6, 2023 meeting. Grounds for the 233
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 3 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
_______

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CERTIFICATION
(Required pursuant to Section 65962.5 (f) of the California Government Code) The applicant/owner hereby certifies that they have consulted the list of hazardous waste sites for the City of Adelanto, dated , and the project is/is not (circle one) located on a site included on the list of hazardous waste sites for the City of Adelanto.

Air Quality/Hazardous Materials Certification: (Required pursuant to Section 65850.2 of the California Government Code)

1. The applicant/owner herby certifies that the project will/will not (circle one) need to comply with the requirements for a permit for construction or modification from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 14306 Park Avenue, Victorville, CA 92392, (760) 245-1661.

2. The applicant/owner herby certifies that the project will/will not (circle one) have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance, or will contain a source or modified source of hazardous air emissions. Please attach a list of any regulated substances and quantities anticipated, if applicable. (Note: Any quantity of hazardous waste or handling or storage of any quantity of acutely hazardous materials requires filing of a Management Plan and a permit from County Environmental health Services. A Management Plan and permit is also required for other hazardous materials if more than the threshold quantities are present, which are typically either 55 gallons of liquid, 200 cubic feet of pressurized gases, or a weight of 500 pounds.)

3. Describe any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the known history of this property.

Please list the materials and dates, if known.

4. The project is/is not (circle one) located within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a school.

NOTE: Plan review, permits, and inspections are also required from Engineering and Building and Safety prior to occupancy of the proposed project.

Certification: I hereby certify that I understand the information regarding deposits for processing costs, information, and requirements referenced in this application and that the information furnished above and in any attached exhibits is true and correct.

The property owner further certifies that they are the legal owner of the property and consent to the application.

Applicant’s Signature Date Property Owner’s signature Date Applicant’s Printed Name Property Owner’s Printed Name
234
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 4 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

PROPERTY OWNER(S) AUTHORIZATION FORM

AUTHORIZATION FOR AGENT TO ACT ON BEHALF OF LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER I/We, the owner(s) of the subject property, do hereby authorize to act in my/our behalf on matters pertaining to
PROCESSING COSTS: The City operates on the basis of full cost recovery for the processing of planning projects. Deposits made at the time of application are projected to be sufficient for the processing of most applications, however, additional deposits may be required to cover the projected costs for review of projects.

If at any time deposits are insufficient to cover projected costs, processing of the project will be stopped until sufficient additional funds are deposited with the City. Lack of sufficient funds on deposit will suspend any required processing time frames.

CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that I understand the information regarding deposits for processing costs, information, and requirements referenced in this application. The property owner further certifies that they are the legal owner of the property and consent to the application.

Dated this day of , 20 .

Printed Name

Signature(s) of Legal Owner(s)
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On this day of 20 , before me
a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) are/is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same.

Witness My Hand and Official Seal
Signature
Name (printed)
NOTE: If the property is a part of a corporation a list of authorized corporate officers must be provided. 235
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 5 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
Submittal Items Required for Application Types
• Application types are listed across the top of the chart, and items required along the side. An “X” in the box, means this item is required for that application type.
• Applications for modifications or extensions require the same information as the original project without the additional studies.
• Submit hard copies as well as electronic copies of required submittal items, either on a USB drive or via email at the time of application.

Tentative Tract or Parcel MapZone Change/ General Plan AmendmentConditional Use PermitMinor CUPLocation Development PlanMinor LDPMajor VarianceMinor VariancePreliminary Review Application and fee X X X X X X X X X
Preliminary Industrial Pretreatment and Wastewater
Discharge Permit (IPWDP)application - ALL

INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND CANNABIS

ACTIVITIES MUST SUBMIT IPWDP

X X X X X X X X X
All Proposed Cannabis Projects Must Provide A
Written description of how cannabis wastewater is
treated (i.e., haul away, reverse osmosis or?)
Biological Habitat Survey
(if required by Planning)

X X X X
Preliminary Drainage and Hydrology Studies (if
required by Public Works)

X X X X
Water & Sewer Utility Feasibility Study (All Cannabis
projects must provide)

X X X X X X X
Mailing Labels (3 sets) X X X X X
Preliminary Title Report (within last 90 days) X X X X X X X X X Assessor’s Parcel Map X X X X X X X X X
Electronic copy of all items listed on this page (USB or e-mail)

X X X X X X X X X
The items listed below must be submitted as a full-size, 24”x36” plan package, stapled and folded to 8.5” x 11” size with the title block facing out. Three full-size (3) sets and one (1) plan set reduced to 8.5”x 11 are required along with a USB drive containing an electronic plan set.

Site Plan X X X X X X X
Parcel/Tract Map X
Preliminary Grading and Drainage X X X
Architectural Elevations X X X X X X X
Colors and Materials Board X X X
Floor Plans X X X X X X X
Conceptual Landscape Plans X X
Date: ______________ Applicant Signature: _______________________________________ 236
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 6 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNER(S) NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED.

1. THREE identical packages to be inserted in separate 8 ¾ x 11-¼ manila envelopes. These envelopes shall indicate the case number and the word “labels”, and shall contain the following:
a. One typed set of gummed labels indicating all: the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, property owner(s) name(s) and the mailing addresses that are within a 300-foot radius (700 feet if the site is 20 acres or more) of the exterior of their proposed project (this list shall be ascertained from the last equalized assessment roll). b. One label each for the owner/applicant/engineer.
c. A photocopy of the aforementioned labels.

2. TWO additional typed sets of gummed labels each for the applicant, owner, engineer, and representative with their mailing addresses. Do not include duplicate sets where applicant and owner, etc. are the same. These should be inserted in a letter-sized envelope and stapled to the outside of one of the large manila envelopes mentioned in item 1 above.

3. A 300-foot radius map on assessor’s map pages, which clearly shows the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for each affected parcel.

Example:

PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION
_______(Print name), certify that on ______(month-day-year) ____________________ the attached property owners list was prepared by______________(Print company or individual’s name) pursuant to application requirements furnished by the City of Adelanto. Said list is a complete and true compilation of owner of the subject property and all other owners within 300 feet of the property involved in the application and is based upon the latest equalized assessment rolls.

I further certify that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that incorrect or erroneous information may be grounds for rejection or denial of the application.

NAME ________________________________________ TITLE __________________________________ ADDRESS ______________________________________________________________________ PHONE __________________________ FAX
SIGNATURE_______________________ DATE _____________________________ 237
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 7 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT)
Date Filed
General Information
l. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:

2. Address of project:

Assessor’s Block and Lot Number:

3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:

4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:

5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:

6. Existing zoning district:

7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):

Project Description:

8. Site size.

9. Square footage.

10. Number of floors of construction.

11. Amount of off-street parking provided.

12. Attach plans.

13. Proposed scheduling.

14. Associated projects.

15. Anticipated incremental development.

16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.

17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities.

18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities.

19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project.

20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required.
238
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 8 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).

Yes No

21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration ☐ ☐ of ground contours.

22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. ☐ ☐

23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. ☐ ☐

24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ☐ ☐

25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ☐ ☐

26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of ☐ ☐ existing drainage patterns.

27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ☐ ☐

28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ☐ ☐

29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables ☐ ☐ or explosives.

30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). ☐ ☐

31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). ☐ ☐

32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ☐ ☐ Environmental Setting

33. Describe the project site as it exists, before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site.

34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects.

Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.

Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and in formation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date Signature
For
239
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 9 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION

TENTATIVE TRACT AND PARCEL MAPS
_____ Tentative Map Number (Assigned by County Surveyor’s Office) _____ The licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall sign, seal and provide their California registration or license number and the date of expiration of such number. _____ List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owners of record, the subdivider and the surveyor or engineer preparing the map.
_____ List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all utility companies which will serve the subdivision including, but not limited to, water supply, sewage disposal, telephone, cable, electrical and natural gas. _____ Clearly show the north arrow (directed toward the top of the map), the scale of the map, the boundary lines, dimensions of the project and the date of preparation of the map. ____ Provide a vicinity map at a scale of one (1) inch equals eight hundred (800) feet of the area showing the proposed subdivision in relation to the adjacent subdivision, established roads, landmarks, etc., within one –quarter (1/4) mile of the exterior boundaries of the proposed subdivision. _____ List the Assessor’s Parcel Number (s) for the entire subdivision. _____ Provide a legal description of the land included within the proposed tentative map. _____ Provide information demonstrating legal, dedicated access to the subdivision and all proposed lots within the subdivision. Also demonstrate that no adjoining parcels are landlocked subsequent to the proposed subdivision. _____ Show all boundary lines of the proposed subdivision with appropriate bearings and distances. _____ Show the lot layout, dimensions of each lot (ditto marks are not acceptable) and a number or letter for each lot in consecutive order, Circle the last lot number and/or letter. _____ List the total acreage, the number of numbered lots and the number of lettered lots. Also list the size of each numbered and /or lettered lot and remainder parcels, if shown. _____ List the minimum, maximum and average lot size. Also list the existing and proposed zoning district classification for each lot and its proposed use.
_____ Show the General Plan land use designation, zoning district classification and land use or uses of the adjoining property within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed subdivision, including that which is across any streets.

Indicate the distances from all property lines and use of any structures on adjoining property. _____ Show the locations, names and existing rights-of all adjoining highways, streets, alleys and /or ways, roads, etc. If none exist, show access to the property. _____ Show the centerline profile (i.e. cross section) and grade for each proposed highway, street or drainage improvement shown on the tentative map.
_____ Show the width and location of all recorded and/or proposed easements, dedication of streets or rights-of-way. _____ Show the radius of all curves on highways and streets. _____ Show the location, all flood hazard areas and their designations. _____ Show the location and outline, to scale, of each existing building, utility pole or other above ground structure. Note on the map whether such building, pole or structure is to be removed from, or remain within the subdivision. _____ Show the location of existing and proposed water lines, sewers, culverts, bridges, drainpipes, fire hydrants and water wells within the subdivision.
240
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 10 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION

SITE PLANS
_____ The licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer shall sign, seal and provide their California registration or license number and the date of expiration of such number. _____ List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owners of record, and the surveyor, or engineer preparing the map.
_____ List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all utility companies which will serve the project including, but not limited to, water supply, sewage disposal, telephone, cable, electrical and natural gas. _____ Clearly show the north arrow (directed toward the top of the map), the scale of the plan, the boundary lines, dimensions of the project and the date of preparation of the plan. _____ Provide a vicinity map at a scale of one (1) inch equals eight hundred (800) feet of the area showing the proposed subdivision in relation to the adjacent subdivision, established roads, landmarks, etc., within one –quarter (1/4) mile of the exterior boundaries of the proposed project. _____ List the Assessor’s Parcel Number (s) for the entire project. _____ Provide a legal description of the land included within the proposed project. _____ Provide information demonstrating legal, dedicated access to the subdivision and all proposed lots within the subdivision. Also demonstrate that no adjoining parcels are landlocked subsequent to the proposed project. _____ Show all boundary lines of the proposed project with appropriate bearings and distances. _____ Show the General Plan land use designation, zoning district classification and land use or uses of the adjoining property within one hundred (100) feet of the proposed project, including that which is across any streets. Indicate the distances from all property lines and use of any structures on adjoining property. _____ Show the locations, names and existing rights-of all adjoining highways, streets, alleys and /or ways, roads, etc. If none exist, show access to the property. _____ Show the centerline profile and grade for each proposed highway, street or drainage improvement shown on the plan.
_____ Show the width and location of all recorded and/or proposed easements, dedication of streets or rights-of-way. _____ Show the radius of all curves on highways and streets. _____ Show the location and outline, to scale, of each existing building, utility pole or other above ground structure. Note on the map whether such building, pole or structure is to be removed from, or remain within the project. _____ Show the location of existing and proposed water lines, sewers, culverts, bridges, drainpipes, fire hydrants and water wells within the project.
_____ Total square footage of each building, number of stories, number and size of dwelling units and number of bedrooms, it applicable.
_____ Number of parking and loading spaces required and provided. _____ Square footage and percentage of the site devoted to building, landscaping, and paved areas for parking and circulation.
_____ Property lines, dimensions, and net lot area.
_____ Footprint of all structures and any overhangs or projections. _____ Location of all entrances and loading doors.
241
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 11 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
_____ All setbacks and distances between buildings and/or structures. _____ Location, typical dimensions, and type of surfacing for all driveways, parking spaces and loading areas. _____ Location of all trash enclosures, transformers and any equipment outside of building. _____ Location, height, and materials of all walls and fences. _____ Location of all existing fire hydrants.
_____ Proposed phases of project (if any).

CHECKLIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS
____ Proposed grades, elevations, slopes, and structures on the site ____ All existing contours and structures on the site and within twenty-five feet (25’) of the boundaries of the site ____ Show proposed sections around property boundaries
____ Show locations and limits of any existing floodway and floodplain areas ____ Location and elevation of all existing and proposed circulation and drainage improvements, including streets, curbs, driveways, sidewalks, median islands, and drainage courses on the site and within 100 feet of the boundaries of the site
____ Preliminary drainage plan shall show or explain the drainage area tributary to the site and include a statement setting forth in detail the manner in which storm water runoff will enter the site, the manner in which it will be carried through the site, and the manner in which disposal beyond the site boundaries be accomplished. Detention basins may be required unless storm water is directed to an improved storm drain facility.

ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
____ Fully dimension all elevations from lowest to highest points ____ Call out material and colors (provide samples)
____ Show variation in plane and textures to demonstrate architectural compatibility with surrounding developments

FLOOR PLANS
____ Show dimensions and Square footage of unit(s)
____ Show eave projections past wall
____ Shade in additions(s)

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLANS
____ Plant pallet and sizes of materials
____ Locations and numbers of trees, shrubs and acres of ground covering, including spacing of ground cover. Identify slope areas.
____ Proposed wall & fences and their materials
____ For Tentative Tract Maps landscape plans should address streetscapes, entry statements, and public spaces such as detention basins.

SPECIAL STUDIES - Studies that may be appropriate to identify necessary mitigation measures to support findings of “No Significant Impact” after mitigation. These may typically include the following:
• Preliminary Drainage and hydrology studies. The Preliminary Hydrology Study shall identify offsite flows the impact the proposed development and identify the increased onsite flows. The Study shall address how the proposed development shall accept offsite flows that impact the proposed development and demonstrate how the proposed development will safely convey the offsite flows while protecting the proposed development. The Study shall also demonstrate how the proposed development will reduce the increased onsite runoff to less than 90% of pre-developed drainage runoff flows. The Preliminary Hydrology Study shall be engineered using County of San Bernardino Flood Control methodologies and included 242
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 12 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022
calculations, maps, diagrams and a written summary that contains recommendation of how offsite flows and increased onsite runoff shall be mitigated.
• Biological Habitat Survey (Primary Focus: Desert Tortoise, Mojave Ground Squirrel, Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead Shrike, Sharpshinned Hawk)
• Utility Feasibility Study (UFS). A UFS is prepared by the City Engineer to determine if sufficient sewer or water capacity is available to service the proposed project, and to determine how the project shall connect to existing sewer or water infrastructure. If a UFS is required, a UFS application shall to be completed by the project applicant and submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department for processing. • Traffic Circulation Plan. The Traffic Circulation Plan shall include internal circulation, the minimum County Fire required points of connection from internal circulation to external existing circulation, and shall include two paved all-weather access points to existing paved all-weather circulation access. Within the Traffic Circulation Plan the applicant shall demonstrate full legal access and right-of-way for all improvements not completely contain within the applicants project site.

Internal circulation shall not allow cul-de-sacs longer than 600 feet and local roads with driveways longer than 1,000 feet. Local Streets along the project boundary shall be constructed to a minimum half-width of 30 feet of asphalt concrete paving with 18 feet of paving to the centerline plus a lane of 12 feet of paving on the other side of the centerline plus a 6 feet wide graded shoulder a shall have a total right-of-way of 60 feet. Internal Local Streets shall be constructed to full width of a of 36 feet wide and shall have a total right-of-way of 60 feet. Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed of a radius of 45 feet to curb-face and shall have a right-of-way radius of 57 feet. The minimum County Fire required points of connection from internal circulation to external existing circulation are as follows:
1 to 50 Dwelling Units 2 connection points
51 to 100 Dwelling Units 3 connection points
101 to 175 Dwelling Units 4 connection points
176 to 275 Dwelling Units 5 connection points
276 to 375 Dwelling Units 6 connection points
376 to 475 Dwelling Units 7 connection points
The two paved all-weather access points to existing paved all-weather circulation access must travel along two separate non-intersecting paths and one access point must be along a road designated General Plan Major Collector or larger. Minimum paved all-weather access shall be 26 feet wide with 6 feet wide graded shoulders on each side.
243
11600 Air Expressway • P.O. Box 10 • Adelanto, CA 92301 • (760) 246-2300 • www.ci.adelanto.ca.us P a g e | 13 Comprehensive Application Revised 12.22.2022

Development Services Department

DEPOSIT FEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City operates on the basis of full cost recovery for the processing of planning projects. Deposits made at the time of application are estimated costs for processing of applications, however, additional deposits may be required to cover the projected costs for review of projects. If at any time deposits are insufficient to cover projected costs, processing of the project will be stopped until sufficient additional funds are deposited with the City. Lack of sufficient funds on deposit will suspend any required processing time frames.

Acknowledgement: I hereby certify that I understand the information regarding deposits for processing costs.
_______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Signature Date Property Owner’s Signature Date 244
6701-008acp

ARIANA ABEDIFARD
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
September 14, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
City Clerk Brenda Lopez
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, CA 92301
Email: [email protected]
Mayor Gabriel Reyes
Mayor Pro Tem Daniel Ramos
Councilmember Joy Jeannette
Councilmember Amanda Uptergrove
Councilmember Angelo Meza
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, CA 92301
Emails:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
James Hirsch, Senior Contract Planner
Community Development DepartmentPlanning Division
Email: [email protected]
Dave Martinez, Planning Director
Email: [email protected]
Nyeka Allen, Development Services
Coordinator
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal to the Adelanto City Council from September 6, 2023 Planning Commission Decision re Otaki Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607)
Dear City Clerk, Mayor Reyes, Mayor Pro Tem Ramos, Honorable City Councilmembers, Mr. Hirsch, and Mr. Martinez:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we are writing to appeal all actions taken by the Adelanto Planning Commission (“Commission”) at its September 6, 2023 meeting with respect to the Otaki Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (CUP 22-19; LDP 22-15; TPM 20607) (“Project”), proposed by Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc. (“Applicant”). 245
September 14, 2023

Page 2 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
At the September 6 hearing, the Commission purported to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Project, and to approve Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) 22-19, Location and Development Plan (“LDP”) 22- 15 and Tentative Parcel Map (“TDP”) 20607. CARE CA hereby appeals each of the actions taken with respect to the Project by the Planning Commission at the September 6 hearing. The grounds for this appeal are set forth herein and in CARE CA’s prior comments on the Project, which are attached to this appeal and incorporated by reference herein. CARE CA previously submitted comments1 during the public comment period for the Project’s MND, which ran from July 31, 2023 through August 30, 2023. As explained in that letter, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project, because substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. On September 6, 2023, CARE CA submitted comments to the Planning Commission reiterating that the Project requires an EIR, and identifying procedural defects in the City’s notice of public hearing.2 As outlined below and in our prior comments, the Commission’s purported Project approvals are contrary to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)3 and not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal, rescind the Project approvals and remand the Project to City staff to prepare a legally adequate Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that fully analyzes and mitigates the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

I. PROCEDURAL BASIS FOR APPEAL
The Adelanto Municipal Code provides that “[a]ll actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Zoning Code may be appealed to the City Council.

All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk.”4 It further provides that “[a]ny person may appeal a decision of Planning Director or Planning Commission in accordance with the terms of this Chapter.”5 All appeals “must be filed within ten (10) working days of the final action by the Planning Director or Planning 1 Exhibit A- August 30, 2023 letter from Richard M. Franco to City of Adelanto re Comments on the Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19) (SCH No. 2023070019) (“August 30 MND Comment Letter”) 2 Exhibit B- September 6, 2023 letter from Richard M. Franco to Adelanto Planning Commission re Agenda Item No. 1- September 6, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting – Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607) (“September 6 Planning Commission letter”). 3 Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and 14 CCR § 15000 et seq. 4 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.100.060(a)(2).
5 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.100.060(a)(3).
246
September 14, 2023

Page 3 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Commission.”6 Persons filing appeals “shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of the appeal as established by Resolution of the City Council.”7 This appeal is timely filed within the time permitted under the Adelanto Municipal Code. The decisions appealed from were final on September 6, 2023, as they were made by the Planning Commission at its September 6 hearing. This appeal is timely filed within 10 working days of September 6, 2023. CARE CA will pay the applicable appeal fee of $2,146.00 via online payment, in accordance with direction from City staff.8
II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Adelanto resident Manuel Olivas, Victorville residents Kaleb Gurule and Miguel Hernandez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Adelanto.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Adelanto and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
6 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.100.060(b).
7 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.100.060(c).
8 Exhibit C- September 13, 2023 email from Nyeka Allen to Richard Franco. 247
September 14, 2023

Page 4 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
III. THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DID

NOT COMPLY WITH CEQA
The CEQA Guidelines provide that “if an agency provides a public hearing on its decision to carry out or approve a project, the agency should include environmental review as one of the subjects for the hearing.”9 While the Commission purported to consider and adopt the MND at its September 6 meeting, the meeting agenda did not include consideration of the MND as an agenda item.

As set forth in full below, the agenda included only a single item that identifies the Project entitlements but lacks any mention of the MND:

1. Tentative Parcel Map 20607, Conditional Use Permit 22-19 & Location and Development Plan 22-15 -Proposal to construct and operate a commercial shopping center development located to the east of US 395, north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street. There would be a total of five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, included in the proposed development. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office and a 20-pump fueling station.

Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building, a 16,702 square foot supermarket, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three story hotel (100 rooms). The site’s Accessor Parcel Numbers are 0459-053-56, 0459-053- 57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053- 08 with a zoning designation of Airport Development District (ADD), City of Adelanto, San Bernardino County.10
The City’s failure to disclose as a separate agenda item that it would be considering adoption of the MND at the September 6 hearing does not comply with the CEQA Guidelines.11 The Notice of Public Hearing for the September 6 9 14 CCR § 15202(b).
10 September 6, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, available at https://adelanto.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=adelanto_0e3beaaf83f3a0cc7cfe2275966bf2c

4.pdf&view=1 (last accessed September 14, 2023). 11 This failure is also a clear violation of the Brown Act. See Gov. Code § 54954.2(a)(1) (public agencies are required, at least 72 hours before a regular meeting, to post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting); see also, San Joaquin Raptor Rescue v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App,4th 1167, 1176-77, 248
September 14, 2023

Page 5 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Commission hearing suffers from the same defect: it contained a single agenda item identifying the Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit and Location and Development Plan (as set forth above) as matters to be considered at the hearing. Moreover, as detailed in CARE CA’s September 6, 2023 letter to the Commission, the Notice of Public Hearing identified an incorrect public comment period for the MND, in violation of CEQA.12 These errors violate CEQA’s procedural requirements, the public’s procedural due process rights, and the Adelanto Municipal Code, which states provides that “[w]hen a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is recommended for adoption pursuant to [CEQA], notice of the hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code…”
The City’s agenda and notice violations invalidate the actions taken by the Commission at its September 6 hearing, and CARE CA accordingly requests that the City Council grant this appeal, rescind the Commission’s actions, and remand the Project to the City with instructions to prepare an EIR.

IV. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S SEPTEMBER 6 RESOLUTION DID NOT ADOPT THE MND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA’S

REQUIREMENTS
As an initial matter, Resolution No. P-23-17 (the “Resolution”), passed by the Commission at its September 6 hearing, did not actually adopt the MND. Adoption of the MND is mentioned in the Resolution’s title, and one of the recitals states that the City “determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project should be prepared for adoption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Guidelines…” However, the Resolution contains no further mention of the MND and the Resolution states only “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Adelanto Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 22-19, Location and Development Plan 22-15 and Tentative Parcel Map 20607 subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit “A” (Attachment B) attached to this Resolution and by this reference incorporated herein.” The Resolution lacks any language indicating that the City has adopted the MND for the Project.
(Planning Commission violated the Brown Act by failing to expressly disclose in its agenda that it would be considering adoption of an MND even though the project generally was identified). CARE CA hereby reserves its right under the Brown Act to file a “cure and correct” letter within the time permitted by Gov. Code section 54960.1.
12 See Exhibit B, September 6 Planning Commission letter. 249
September 14, 2023

Page 6 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The Resolution also lacks crucial components mandated by CEQA when a lead agency adopts an MND. CEQA Guidelines section 15074(b) provides, in part, that the “decision making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment…” The Resolution lacks this required finding, stating only that the Commission “finds and determines that the city has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act…” While a lead agency may satisfy the requirement for a finding that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment by adopting the proposed MND, the City has not actually adopted the MND as discussed above. Moreover, as discussed below, there is no evidence in the record that the City has considered CARE CA’s comments, which raise a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant, unmitigated environmental impacts.

Finally, when an MND is adopted by a lead agency, the agency must also adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (“MMRP”).13 The Resolution contains no mention of, and does not adopt, an MMRP for the Project. Nor does the MND set forth a program for mitigation monitoring or reporting.14 Because the City has not properly adopted the MND in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council should grant this appeal and remand the Project to City staff with instructions to prepare an EIR that fully analyzes the Project’s impacts.

V. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR THE

PROJECT
On August 30, 2023, CARE CA submitted timely comments (including expert comments) explaining several ways in which the MND failed to comply with CEQA.15 These comments include the following:
13 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6; 14 CCR §§ 15074(d) and 15097. 14 The Notice of Determination filed by the City on September 13, 2023 erroneously states that a mitigation monitoring or reporting plan was adopted for the Project and that mitigation measures were made a condition of approval for the Project. There is no evidence in the record that either of these statements is true.
15 Exhibit B, August 30 MND comment letter.
250
September 14, 2023

Page 7 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
• The MND lacks an adequate project description because it states that the Project’s building construction phase will last approximately ten months, while the air emissions modeling assumes that phase will last only 46 days.
• The MND fails to consider the health risks from Valley Fever, which is endemic in San Bernardino County and can infect workers and nearby residents when they are exposed to spores in the soil during ground disturbances such as site preparation and grading during Project construction.
• The MND fails to analyze the Project’s potentially significant health risks associated with air emissions from Project construction and operations.
• The MND’s air quality analysis is incomplete as it fails to account for emissions from the fire pump system and back up emergency generators that will be part of Project operations.
• The MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to western Joshua tree, as required by State, County and City law.

CARE CA’s MND comments provide a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may have significant, unmitigated impacts.

Under CEQA, the City is therefore required to prepare an EIR.

The Planning Commission’s actions violated CEQA and the Municipal Code because the Planning Commission failed to consider CARE CA’s comments on the MND, and failed to require that an EIR be prepared for the Project.

CEQA requires that the Planning Commission (as the City’s decision-making body for this Project) should have considered the MND along with any comments received during the public review process.16 The Commission could only adopt the MND if it found “on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment...”17 The Commission’s actions violated this procedural requirement. City staff plainly did not consider CARE CA’s comments in preparing its agenda report recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the MND and approve the Project. The agenda report for this hearing was posted to the City’s website on or before August 30, the same day that CARE CA’s comments were submitted. The agenda report for the September 6 hearing notes receipt of comments from CDFW 16 14 CCR § 15074(b).
17 Id.
251
September 14, 2023

Page 8 ends

6701-008acp
printed on recycled paper
but makes no mention of the CARE CA comments. Similarly, the Notice of Public Hearing erroneously states that “no new effects were identified during the 30-day public comment period.”18 And the Commission gave no indication at the September 6 hearing that it was aware of or considered CARE CA’s comments. The Commission therefore failed to consider the substantial evidence presented by CARE CA that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts requiring an EIR.

The Commission’s approval of the Project also violated CEQA by approving a legally inadequate CEQA document which does not accurately disclose or mitigate the Project’s environmental and public health impacts. In his expert comments submitted with CARE CA’s August 30 comment letter, Dr. James Clark provides a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may have significant health impacts on Project construction workers and nearby residents due to potential exposure to Valley Fever spores.19 Dr. Clark’s comments also provide a fair argument that nearby residents may be exposed to significant health risks from toxic air contaminants emitted by the Project’s construction and operations, impacts which the MND failed to analyze at all.

As the record contains substantial evidence that the Project will have significant unmitigated effects on the environment, the Commission’s approval of the project was in error and an EIR is required.

The City Council should therefore grant this appeal, and remand the Project to City staff with instructions to prepare an EIR that analyzes, discloses, and mitigates the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

Sincerely
Richard M. Franco
Attachments
RMF:acp
18 See September 6 Planning Commission letter, Exhibit B. 19 See August 2 comment letter from James Clark, (Attachment A to August 30 MND Comment letter).
252

EXHIBIT A
253
6701-006acp

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL
James Hirsch, Senior Contract Planner
City of Adelanto
Community Development DepartmentPlanning Division
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, CA 92301
Email: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Dave Martinez, Planning Director
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on the Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22- 19) (SCH No. 2023070019)
Dear Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Martinez:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) provide comments on the revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)1 prepared by the City of Adelanto (“City”) for the Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (SCH No. 2023070019; CUP 22-19; LDP 22-15; TPM 20607) (“Project”), proposed by Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc. (“Applicant”).

The Project proposes the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development. The Project would be constructed on five individual 1 As discussed below, the City first posted its MND for the Project on the State’s CEQAnet web portal on or about July 3, 2023; that MND bears a date of June 29, 2023 on its cover page. On or about July 28, 2023, the City issued a new Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“NOI”) and posted to CEQAnet a revised MND that indicates on its cover page that it was revised on July 26, 2023. The July 28, 2023 NOI indicates that the public review and comment period ends on August 30, 2023. As used herein, “MND” refers to the revised MND. 254
August 30, 2023

Page 2 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot (“sf”) convenience store with a 956 sf upper-level office and 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double-sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double-sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 sf drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 sf multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 sf supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 sf multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 sf automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 sf threestory hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The proposed project site is located east of US 395, north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street in the City. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

Based on our review of the MND and available supporting documents, we conclude that the MND fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act2 (“CEQA”). The MND fails to disclose and analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and fails to identify enforceable measures that can reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.

As explained in these comments, the City may not rely on an MND for the Project because there is more than a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant air quality and public health impacts from construction and operational emissions and potentially significant impacts to biological resources.

The City may not approve the Project until it prepares an environmental impact report (“EIR”) that adequately analyzes all of the Project’s potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts.

These comments were prepared with the assistance of air emissions/air quality expert James J.J. Clark, Ph.D., Dr. Clark provides substantial evidence of potentially significant impacts that have not been adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated. Dr. Clark’s technical comments are attached hereto3 and are submitted to the City, in addition to the comments in this letter. 2 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“C.C.R”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
3 Attachment A: J. Clark, Comment Letter on Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) US-395 & Auburn Avenue, CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607, Adelanto, CA SCH No. 2023070019 (hereinafter, “Clark Comments).
255
August 30, 2023

Page 3 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Adelanto resident Manuel Olivas, Victorville residents Kaleb Gurule and Miguel Hernandez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Adelanto.

II. AN EIR IS REQUIRED
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.4 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”5 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”6 4 See Pub. Resources Code § 21000; CEQA Guidelines § 15002. 5 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted). 6 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 256
August 30, 2023

Page 4 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.8
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.9
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”10 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.11 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.12
7 See Pub. Resources Code § 21100.
8 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
9 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (emphasis added).
10 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320. 11 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754. 12 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to 257
August 30, 2023

Page 5 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”13 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.

Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”14 With respect to this Project, the MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The City failed to adequately investigate, analyze, and disclose the Project’s potentially significant air quality, health risk, and biological resources impacts.

Therefore, the City’s conclusions that the Project will have less than significant impacts are unsupported.15 Whereas the City lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions, Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts to public health and air quality. In addition, the MND lacks substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the Project’s impacts to biological resources will be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.

III. THE MND LACKS A COMPLETE, STABLE AND ACCURATE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The MND does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include a complete, stable, and accurate project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. Without a complete and accurate project description, the support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”). 13 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a). 14 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 15 Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5; pp. 4-5 – 4-11, 4-32 – 4-39. 258
August 30, 2023

Page 6 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental analysis under CEQA will be impermissibly narrow, thus minimizing the Project’s impacts and undercutting public review.16 CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on the lead agency rather than the public. Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to provide a complete and accurate project description.17 Under CEQA, the “project” is defined as “the whole of an action” and the lead agency therefore must describe the entirety of the project’s activities to ensure that all potential impacts of the project will be examined prior to approval.18 An initial study that fails to describe the entire project is fatally deficient: “[A] correct determination of the nature and scope of the project is a critical step in complying with the mandates of CEQA.”19 Where an agency fails to provide an accurate project description, or fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.20 An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully and intelligently evaluate the project’s potential environmental effects.21
Here, the MND fails to accurately and consistently describe the Project’s construction schedule, resulting in an unreliable and unsupported analysis of the Project’s construction emissions. The construction schedule set forth in the MND’s project description is in direct conflict with the schedule used in the modeling relied on by the MND to estimate the Project’s GHG and other air pollution emissions.

The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include graders, bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete.” 16 See, e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 17 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 18 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
19 Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252, 267; see also, Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214. 20 El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.
21 City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 406. 22 MND, pg. 11. 259
August 30, 2023

Page 7 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
• “Task 2 Site Preparation. During this phase, the building footings, utility lines, and other underground infrastructure would be installed. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete.”
• “Task 3 Building Construction. The new buildings would be constructed during this phase. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include offroad trucks, cranes, and fork-lifts. This task will take approximately ten months to complete [emphasis added].”
• “Task 4 Paving and Finishing. This concluding task would involve the paving and finishing. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include trucks, backhoes, rollers, pavers, and trenching equipment. The completion of this phase will take approximately one month to complete.”
The MND purports to rely on an Air Quality Impact Analysis and a GHG Analysis to estimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions and to assess the potential environmental impacts of those emissions.23 The AQ Impact Analysis states that “[c]onstruction is expected to comment in September 2024 and will last through December 2024…The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines.”24 Construction duration by phase is set forth in Table 3-2 of the Air Quality Analysis, which states that the “building construction” phase will start on October 28, 2024 and end on December 30, 2024 and will total 46 days.25
Construction emissions for the Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”), a statewide land use computer emissions model.26 For purposes of construction emissions modeling, and in direct contrast to the 10 month estimate in the MND’s Project description, the MND’s technical appendices assume that the “Building Construction” phase will last only 46 days.27 The AQ Impact Analysis does not explain the basis for assuming a 46- 23 MND, Appendix A, June 7, 2023 Adelanto Commercial Air Quality Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads (“AQ Impact Analysis”); Appendix E, June 7, 2023 Adelanto Commercial Greenhouse Gas Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads (“GHG Analysis”). 24 AQ Impact Analysis, pg. 25.
25 AQ Impact Analysis, Table 3-2 at pg. 25.
26 AQ Impact Analysis, pg. 24; GHG Analysis, pg. 39.
27 AQ Impact Analysis, pg. 26; GHG Analysis, pg. 40. As with Table 3-2 in the AQ Impact Analysis, the CalEEMod files included in Appendix A specify that the Building Construction Phase will start 260
August 30, 2023

Page 8 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
day duration for building construction, nor does it address the inconsistency with the MND’s project description. Furthermore, by assuming that the building construction phase will commence on October 28, 2024, the modeling avoids reporting any emissions for the summer months. As noted in the MND, “emissions…are typically higher during the summer months and represent a worstcase scenario.”28 Therefore, by modeling a significantly shorter building construction phase with an October start date—in direct conflict with what is set forth in the MND’s project description—the AQ Impact analysis avoids reporting any summer emissions and likely underestimates the Project’s air quality impacts.

These significant disparities between the estimated building construction phase set forth in the MND vs. what is used in the CalEEMod emissions modeling makes the MND’s construction emissions analysis inherently unreliable and unsupported by substantial evidence.

The City must prepare and circulate for public review an EIR that properly analyzes and discloses the Project’s impacts to air quality and GHGs based on a consistent and accurate estimate of the Project’s construction phases.

IV. THERE IS A FAIR ARGUMENT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT

UNMITIGATED IMPACTS
A lead agency’s significance determination must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.29 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.30 Here, the MND lacks substantial evidence supporting its findings with respect to air quality and biological resources impacts.

A. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze or Disclose Air Quality and Health Impacts

1. The MND Fails to Consider Health Risks from Valley Fever The MND fails to acknowledge, let alone analyze and mitigate, the potentially significant health impacts from Valley Fever associated with Project construction. Valley Fever is a disease that can infect people when they are exposed on 10/28/24 and end on 12/30/24, which totals 46 days based on a 5-day work week (see AQ Impact Analysis, Appendix 3.1 at pg. 41/56.)
28 MND, pg. 32.
29 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
30 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
261
August 30, 2023

Page 9 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
to fungal spores during ground disturbance, such as the site preparation and grading associated with this Project’s construction. Symptoms include fever, cough, headache, rash, muscle aches, or joint pain. In severe cases, patients develop pneumonia or meningitis, sometimes resulting in death.31 Valley Fever is endemic in the Southwestern United States, including San Bernardino County and the Mojave Desert.32 Dr. Clark’s comments describe the increasing incidence of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County over the last several years.33 As discussed in detail in Dr. Clark’s comments, there is a significant risk of Valley Fever to both workers constructing the Project and nearby residents. Dr.

Clark describes the known presence of Valley Fever spores in the soils of the Southern California high desert and San Bernardino County, where the Project site is located. Workers involved in soil-disturbing activities, such as grading, can be exposed to Valley Fever in disturbed and windblown dust containing Valley Fever spores. Nearby workers and other receptors downwind of disturbed soils are also at risk.

Dr. Clark points out that standard fugitive dust mitigation measures are inadequate to protect construction workers and other nearby receptors from the risk of Valley Fever, and identifies several mitigation measures that can actively suppress the spread of Valley Fever. These include:
(1) including Valley Fever-specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program;
(2) controlling dust exposure with specific measures that exceed conventional dust control, such as (a) applying chemical stabilizers at least 24 hours prior to high wind events, (b) applying water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day, and at least four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust, (c) providing National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respirators for workers with a history of Valley Fever, (d) providing half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use by workers in areas of ground disturbing activities and half-face respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters for use during digging activities, (e) prohibiting eating and smoking at the worksite and providing separate, clean eating 31 See County of San Bernardino Environmental Health Services Fact Sheet: Coccidioidomycosis, available at https://wp.sbcounty.gov/dph/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/06/NewsCoccidioidomycosis-6.1.17.pdf (last visited 10/29/22). 32 Id.; see also, Valley Fever: Environmental Risk Factors And Exposure Pathways Deduced From Field Measurements In California, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 Jul 22;17(15):5285, abstract available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32707996/ (last visited 12/10/2022). 33 Clark Comments, pg. 5.
262
August 30, 2023

Page 10 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
areas with hand-washing facilities, (f) avoiding outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms, and (g) limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of infection is higher during this season;
(3) preventing transport of Valley Fever spores outside endemic areas by (a) thoroughly cleaning equipment, vehicles and other items before they are moved offsite to other work locations, (b) preventing spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate, (c) loading all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and applying water to the top of the load sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity, or covering haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover, (d) providing workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities, (e) training workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes, and ; and (f) posting warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection; (4) providing medical surveillance for employees, such as (a) prompt access to medical care, (b) working with a medical professional to develop protocols to evaluate employees who have Valley Fever symptoms.34
Dr. Clark’s comments and analysis provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated health risks to Project construction workers and nearby residents. The City must prepare an EIR that evaluates the risk of Valley Fever and includes appropriate mitigation measures.

2. The MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Potentially Significant Health Impacts from the Project’s Construction and
Operational Emissions
The MND’s air quality analysis includes the conclusion that Project construction and operation will not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, finding that such impacts will be less than significant.35 This conclusion, however, is unsupported by any actual analysis or evidence. 34 Id., pgs. 5-7.
35 MND, pg. 32.
263
August 30, 2023

Page 11 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The MND simply recites a list of land use project types for which the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (“MDAQMD”) requires a health risk assessment if within a specified distance to a sensitive receptor. For example, the MND states that, if there are sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a gasoline dispensing facility (as will be included as part of the Project), the lead agency must evaluate whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.36 The MND states “The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 400 feet to the northwest. Due to the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor, the impacts will be less than significant [emphasis in original].”37 The MND implies that, if MDAQMD does not require an evaluation of health risks by virtue of the distance to sensitive receptors, the potential impacts are less than significant. This is a bare conclusion, unsupported by any evidence, and is not consistent with CEQA’s requirements. The City’s significance determination is not supported by accurate scientific and factual data, as required by CEQA.38 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.39
These standards apply to an agency’s analysis of public health impacts of a project under CEQA. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme Court affirmed CEQA’s mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.40 In Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a 942-acre master-planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they relate to adverse human health effects.41
As the Sierra Club Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”42 The Court concluded that the County’s EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose the nature 36 Id.
37 Id.
38 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
39 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
40 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522. 41 Id. at 507–508, 518–522. 42 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
264
August 30, 2023

Page 12 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
and extent of public health impacts caused by the project’s air pollution. As the Court explained, the EIR failed to comply with CEQA because after reading the EIR, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”43 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.44
Furthermore, in Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that a CEQA document must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.45 In that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland International Airport.46 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an increase in the release of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) and adopted mitigation measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the Project’s impacts on human health.47 The Court held that mitigation alone was insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated with exposure to TACs.48 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”49
As Dr. Clark explains, the MND makes no effort to quantify the health risk from TACs generated by Project construction and operations, despite recognizing the presence of nearby sensitive receptors.50 He points out that a proper assessment of health risk from TACs requires that the City ”quantify the concentration of each TAC released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.”51 Only then can the City make a determination of the relative significance of these emissions.
43 Id. at 518. CEQA’s statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the “environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs agencies to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.” (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).) 44 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522. 45 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1369–1371. 46 Id. at 1349–1350.
47 Id. at 1364–1371. 48 Id. 49 14 C.C.R. § 15003(b).
50 Clark Comments, pgs. 9-11.
51 Id., pg. 12.
265
August 30, 2023

Page 13 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The City must prepare and circulate for public review and comment an EIR that properly analyzes, discloses and if necessary, mitigates the Project’s health risk impacts to sensitive receptors.

3. The MND’s Analysis of Operational Emissions is Incomplete Dr. Clark points out that the MND’s AQ Analysis is incomplete as it fails to consider emissions from certain equipment that will be part of the Project’s operations.52 First, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system in order to comply with the California Fire Code and local regulations. Second, the Project will include a grocery store, convenience store, and potentially other retail users that will use refrigeration units requiring back-up generators to ensure continuous operation of the refrigeration units.

Dr. Clark reviewed the CalEEMod modeling outputs for the MND’s operational emissions estimates, and finds that the analysis omits emissions from a fire pump system, refrigeration units and back-up generators. In particular, he points out that “operational emissions from [back-up generators] due to testing and maintenance along with unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events, may be substantial and must be analyzed by the City. The IS/MND lacks any information about these emissions.”
The MND therefore underestimates the Project’s operational emissions. An EIR must be prepared to accurately disclose and mitigate the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with that equipment.

4. The MND’s Conclusions as to ROG Emissions is Unsupported The MND includes an analysis of the Project’s construction and operational emissions with respect to “criteria” pollutants including Reactive Organic Gases (“ROG”).53 Based on CalEEMod results, the MND concludes that ROG emissions will not exceed the MDAQMD significance threshold of 137 lbs/day of ROG.

However, the MND also states that “[f]or ROG emissions to remain under the threshold during the architectural coatings phase, coatings must be below a level of 150 VOC g/L.”54 The MND lacks any mitigation measure or other enforceable mechanism to ensure that the Project only uses architectural coatings that are below 150 VOC g/L. Without such measures, it is reasonably foreseeable that 52 Id., pgs. 7-9.
53 MND, pg. 30-31.
54 MND, pg. 31.
266
August 30, 2023

Page 14 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
coatings exceeding that standard will be used, and cause an exceedance of the significance threshold for ROGs. The MND’s conclusion that the Project will not result in ROG emissions exceeding the significance threshold is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

B. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Impacts to Biological Resources

1. The MND Lacks Adequate Mitigation for Impacts to
Joshua Trees
The MND recognizes that the western Joshua tree is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”), and therefore any attempt to remove a Joshua tree from its current location will require an Incidental Take permit.55 Joshua trees are also protected under the Adelanto Municipal Code,56 the San Bernardino County Code,57 and the newly enacted Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (“WJTCA”), which went into effect on July 10, 2023.58 The MND and its supporting biological resources assessment disclose that the Project site contains seven Joshua Trees, though only one is deemed suitable for relocation/transplantation.59 The remaining six trees will be “cut up and discarded as per City requirements.”60
As an initial matter, the MND fails to acknowledge California’s recent enactment of the WJTCA, which prohibits the take of any western Joshua tree except as authorized in the Act.61 The WJTCA includes a process for obtaining take authorization for western Joshua tree, similar to the take permit process under CESA. Under the take authorization process provided under the WJTCA, the permittee is required to submit a census of trees onsite, include practicable minimization and avoidance measures in the project, and provide proportional compensatory mitigation for take of species.62 The WJTCA also includes an in-lieu fee option whereby a permittee may pay a fee, in-lieu of providing compensatory mitigation, for each Western Joshua Tree removed.63 The MND lacks any discussion of the WJTCA or the Project’s compliance with its requirements. 55 MND, pg. 41.
56 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.57.040.
57 San Bernardino County Development Code Chapter 88.01. 58 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB122 59 Id., pg. 41; Appendix C, Protected Plant Preservation Plan, pgs. 1, 6. 60 MND, pg. 42.
61 Fish and Game Code § 1927.2(a).
62 Fish and Game Code § 1927.3(a).
63 Fish and Game Code §§ 1927.3(d)-(e).
267
August 30, 2023

Page 15 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The MND includes Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 11 to address impacts to Joshua trees, and concludes that this mitigation will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.64 The measure is set forth in full below. “Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 10. The following mitigation measures are applicable to the Joshua Trees that are present on the project site.

1. The Joshua trees will be retained in place or replanted somewhere on the site where they can remain in perpetuity or will be transplanted to an off-site area approved by the city where they can remain in perpetuity. Joshua trees which are deemed not suitable for transplanting will be cut-up and discarded as per City
requirements [emphasis added].

2. Earthen berms will be created around each tree by the biologist prior to excavation and the trees will be watered approximately one week before transplanting. Watering the trees prior to excavation will help make excavation easier, ensure the root ball will hold together, and minimize stress to the tree.

Page 16 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
requirements of the County of San Bernardino for the relocation of Joshua trees.”66 The San Bernardino County Code, in turn, sets forth a number of requirements relating to the removal of Joshua trees, none of which are discussed in the MND nor included as mitigation measures. For example, the San Bernardino County Code includes the following provisions:
• Section 88.01.060 provides that Joshua trees are “regulated desert plants,” which shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant removal permit in compliance with section 88.01.050.
• Section 88.01.050 sets forth certain findings required for approval of removal of a regulated tree or plant, including that “[t]he location of the regulated tree or plant and/or its dripline interferes with an allowed structure, sewage disposal area, paved area, or other approved improvement or ground disturbing activity and there is no other alternative feasible location for the improvement [emphasis added].” • Section 88.01.050 further provides that, in the Desert Region (which includes Adelanto), removal of “specimen size” Joshua trees requires a finding that no other reasonable alternative exists for the development of the land. Specimen size Joshua trees are defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria: (a) circumference equal or greater than 50 inches measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade level; (b) total tree height of 15 feet or greater; (c) trees possessing a barklike trunk; and (d) a cluster of ten or more individual trees, of any size, growing in close proximity to each other.
• Section 88.01.050 also includes a provision that the applicable review authority may require certification from an appropriate arborist, registered professional forester or a Desert Native Plant Expert that the proposed tree removal, replacement or revegetation activities are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with Chapter 88.01.

The MND contains no discussion of any of these provisions, and lacks information from which the required findings can be made. There is nothing in the record supporting a finding that the six Joshua trees slated for removal interfere with an allowed structure and that there is no other alternative feasible location for the Project.

The MND also lacks sufficient evidence to determine whether any of the six Joshua trees qualify as “specimen size,” as neither the MND nor the supporting biological technical reports include information about the trees’ circumference or a 66 Adelanto Municipal Code § 17.57.040.
269
August 30, 2023

Page 17 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
description of their bark. Finally, the MND does not acknowledge the requirement for a Tree or Plant removal permit under San Bernardino County Code section

88.01.050.

Given the foregoing, the MND lacks substantial evidence that Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 11 adequately mitigates the removal and destruction of six Joshua trees on the Project site. The City must prepare an EIR that fully addresses the requirements of the WJTCA and the San Bernardino County Code, and that includes adequate mitigation, supported by substantial evidence, that the Project will not have significant impacts on biological resources including Joshua trees.

2. The MND Defers Analysis and Mitigation of the
Project’s Hydrological Impacts
The MND does not comply with CEQA as it impermissibly defers analysis and mitigation of the Project’s potentially significant hydrological impacts. The Project site is currently undeveloped. While no riparian areas or wetlands were observed on the site during the biological study, “a potential jurisdictional channel was observed where a blue line channel crosses the northern boundary of the project site and runs southeast exiting the site at the eastern border.”67 However, rather than further assessing the channel and the Project’s potential impacts on it, the MND defers any analysis to some unspecified later time by relying on Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 11: “A comprehensive jurisdictional delineation may be required at a future date due to a possible downstream connection or nexus with a more significant body to determine if the channel meets the criteria as Waters of the State (WoS) and/or Waters of the U.S. (WoUS).”68 The MND concludes that, with this mitigation measure, impacts will be less than significant.

Without performing such comprehensive delineation, the public and City decisionmakers have no way of knowing whether there is a jurisdictional channel that connects to waters of the State or U.S. The MND therefore violates CEQA’s requirement to analyze and disclose the severity of Project impacts before the 67 Id.
68 Id., pg. 45.
270
August 30, 2023

Page 18 ends

6701-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Project is approved.69 The City must prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes and mitigates such impacts.

V. CONCLUSION
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence demonstrating that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment.70 As discussed herein, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and that are not adequately analyzed or mitigated. The MND also fails to contain the basic information and analysis required by CEQA, deficiencies which “cannot be dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects.”71
The City’s findings regarding Project impacts either do not comply with the law or are not supported by substantial evidence. The City cannot approve the Project until it prepares an EIR that resolves these issues and complies with CEQA’s requirements.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
Attachment
RMF:
69 14 CCR §§ 15143, 15126.2(a); Cal. Build. Indust. Ass’n v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 388-90; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 (environmental review should be performed at earliest feasible stage in the planning process). 70 Pub. Res. Code § 21151; 14 CCR §15063(b)(1).
71 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1220.
271

ATTACHMENT A
272
1 | Page
August 2, 2023
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Richard Franco
Subject: Comment Letter on Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) US-395 & Auburn
Avenue, CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607, Adelanto,
CA SCH NO. 2023070019.

Dear Mr. Franco:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the IS/MND. If we do not comment on a specific item, this does not constitute acceptance of the item.

Project Description:

The applicant (Gus Otaki) is proposing to construct and operate a commercial shopping center development on Accessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459- 053-08 with a zoning designation of Airport Development District ADD). There would be a total of five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling

11.81 acres, included in the proposed development. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office with 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double sided fuel Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
273
2 | Page
dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot, three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The maximum height of the hotel would be 40-feet.

Figure 1: Project Site
274
3 | Page
Figure 2: Project Site Plan
The IS/MND concludes that no mitigation is required to prevent impacts from the project on air quality in the area. This conclusion is in conflict with the facts provided within the IS/MND.

Specific Comments:

1. The IS/MND Fails To Address Impacts from Exposure to Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever Cocci) From Particulate Matter Released From Site During Construction Activities of The Project.

The IS/MND fails to adequately address the known presence/issue of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever Cocci) in the High Desert Portion of Southern California. Dust exposure is one of the primary risk factors for contracting Valley Fever (via Coccidiodes imimitis (cocci) exposure). When 275
4 | Page
soil containing the cocci spores are disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne, exposing construction workers and other nearby sensitive receptors.

The fungus lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil. When soil containing this fungus is disturbed by activities such as digging, vehicles, construction activities, dust storms, or during earthquakes, the fungal spores become airborne. According to the Air Quality Analysis of the IS/MND, the project will involve 10 days of site preparation which will disturb 15 acres of soil and 20 days of grading activities which will disturb 20 acres of soil.

Figure 3: Details From CalEEMOD Analysis of Project
The most at-risk populations are construction and agricultural workers.1 Construction workers are the very population that would be most directly exposed by the Project. A refereed journal article on occupational exposures notes that “[l]abor groups where occupation involves close contact with the soil are at greater risk, especially if the work involves dusty digging operations.”2 The potentially exposed population in surrounding areas is much larger than construction workers because the nonselective raising of dust during Project construction will carry the very small spores, 0.002–0.005 millimeters (“mm”), into nonendemic areas, potentially exposing large non1 Lawrence L. Schmelzer and R. Tabershaw, Exposure Factors in Occupational Coccidioidomycosis, American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, v. 58, no. 1, 1968, pp. 107–113, Table 3; available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228046/?page=1. 2 Ibid., p. 110.
276
5 | Page
Project-related populations.3,
4 These very small particles are not controlled by conventional construction dust control mitigation measures.

Since 2015, the number of cases of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County has increased from 29 in 2015 to 229 in 2019, as reported by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH).5 In 2021, 66 cases were recorded in San Bernardino County, 6 twice as many as the amounts reported
in 2015. In the first quarter of 2023, San Bernardino County reported 45 cases.

Standard fugitive dust mitigation measures are not adequate to protect construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors from this risk. The City should require measures from the Proponent to actively suppress the spread of VF by:

1. Include specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (as required by Title 8, Section 3203) regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever.

2. Control dust exposure:
- Apply chemical stabilizers at least 24-hours prior to high wind event; - Apply water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day. Watering frequency should be increased to a minimum of four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust;
- Provide National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators for workers with a prior history of Valley Fever. - Half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities. Half-face 3 Schmelzer and Tabershaw, 1968, p. 110; Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978 4 Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978, p. 527 (“The northern areas were not directly affected by the ground level windstorm that had struck Kern County but the dust was lifted to several thousand feet elevation and, borne on high currents, the soil and arthrospores along with some moisture were gently deposited on sidewalks and automobiles as ‘a mud storm’ that vexed the residents of much of California.” The storm originating in Kern County, for example, had major impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento).
5 CDPH. 2019. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidiodomycosis) In California, 2019. Surveillance and Statistics Section, Infection Diseases Branch, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Center For Infectious Diseases, California Department of Public Health.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2019.pdf 6 CDPH. 2023. Coccidiodomycosis In California, Provisional Monthly Report, January – March 2023 (as of March 31, 2023). Surveillance and Statistics Section, Infection Diseases Branch, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Center For Infectious Diseases, California Department of Public Health. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCAProvisionalMonthlyReport .pdf
277
6 | Page
respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees should wear respirators when working near earth-moving machinery.
- Prohibit eating and smoking at the worksite, and provide separate, clean eating areas with hand-washing facilities.
- Avoid outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms.
- Consider limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of cocci infection is higher during this season.

3. Prevent transport of cocci outside endemic areas:
- Thoroughly clean equipment, vehicles, and other items before they are moved offsite to other work locations. - Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate;
- Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and apply water to the top of the load sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity; or cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover.
- Provide workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities. - Clothing should be changed after work every day, preferably at the work site. - Train workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes; alternatively, consider installing boot-washing. - Post warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.

4. Improve medical surveillance for employees:
- Employees should have prompt access to medical care, including suspected workrelated illnesses and injuries. - Work with a medical professional to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley Fever.
- Consider preferentially contracting with 1-2 clinics in the area and communicate 278
7 | Page
with the health care providers in those clinics to ensure that providers are aware that Valley Fever has been reported in the area. This will increase the likelihood that ill workers will receive prompt, proper and consistent medical care. - Respirator clearance should include medical evaluation for all new employees, annual re-evaluation for changes in medical status, and annual training, and fittesting. - Skin testing is not recommended for evaluation of Valley Fever.7 - If an employee is diagnosed with Valley Fever, a physician must determine if the employee should be taken off work, when they may return to work, and what type of work activities they may perform.

The mitigation measures identified in this comment, based on actual experience during construction of solar and wind projects in endemic areas, should be required for the Project. The City must include concrete measures like the ones listed above in an environmental impact report (EIR) of the Project.

2. The Air Quality Analysis Of Operational Emissions Is Incomplete And Fails To Include Emissions From The Fire Pump System And The Back Up Generator System(s) That Will Be Installed Onsite.

According to the operations air quality analysis of Project provided in the IS/MND8 operational emissions were calculated using the CalEEMOD (Version 2020.4.0) software. In the CalEEMOD outputs provided in the air quality analysis there is no fire pump system and no back-up generator system is included in the analyses. To be compliant with the California Fire Code (CFC) and local fire authorities, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system. 7 Short-term skin tests that produce results within 48 hours are now available. See Kerry Klein, NPR for Central California, New Valley Fever Skin Test Shows Promise, But Obstacles Remain, November 21, 2016; available at http://kvpr.org/post/new-valley-fever-skin-test-shows-promise-obstacles-remain. 8 Urban Crossroads. 2023. Adelanto Commercial Air Quality Impacts Analysis, City of Adelanto. Dated June 7, 2023. 279
8 | Page
Figure 4: CalEEMOD Output
Operational emissions from all backup generators (BUGs), fire pumps, and booster pumps that will be used at the Project site must be analyzed in conjunction with the Project’s other operational emissions to determine the full extent of the Project’s operational air quality impacts. In particular, operational emissions from BUGs due to testing and maintenance along with unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events, may be substantial and must be analyzed by the City. The IS/MND lacks any information about these emissions.

Extreme heat events are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.9 The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. In 2021, the Governor of California declared that during extreme heat events the use of stationary generators shall be deemed an emergency use under California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 17, section 93115.4 sub. (a) (30) (A)(2). The number of Extreme Heat Events is likely to increase in California with the continuing change in climate the State is currently undergoing.

Power produced during PSPS or extreme heat events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts). 10 Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines.

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.
9 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 10 CARB. 2019. Use of Back-up Engines For Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events.

October 25, 2019.
280
9 | Page
According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) de-energization report11 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events (emphasis added) that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers, and the rest were commercial/industrial/medical baseline/other customers. CARB’s data also indicated that on average each of these customers had about 43 hours of power outage in October 2019. 12 Using the actual emission factors for each diesel BUG engines in the air district’s stationary BUGs database, CARB staff calculated that the 1,810 additional stationary generators (like those proposed for the Project) running during a PSPS in October 2019 generated 126 tons of NOx, 8.3 tons or particulate matter, and 8.3 tons of DPM. In addition to creating an onsite source of DPM which will affect the residents of the structure, the additional NOx emissions could increase the Project’s overall operational daily emission rate above the regional threshold depending on the size of the BUG utilized by the Project.

This failure to detail the emission sources at the site is a serious flaw in the air quality analysis.

The IS/MND’s conclusion that operational air quality impacts would be less than significant is not supported by the City’s incomplete emissions calculations. The City must correct this omission in an EIR for the project.

3. The City’s Air Quality Analysis Fails To Include A Quantitative Health Risk Analysis Of The Impacts Of Toxic Air Contaminants From The Construction Phase And Operational Phase Of The Project For The Nearest Sensitive Receptor(s) The IS/MND concludes (page 32) that “The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 400 feet to the northwest. Due to the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor, the impacts will be less than significant.” As demonstrated in the figure below, it is clear that the City is aware of a number of sensitive receptors near the Project Site. 11 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage. 12 CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
281
10 | Page
Figure 5: Identified Sensitive Receptors In IS/MND
The determination of a significance threshold is based on a quantitative risk analysis that requires the City to perform a multistep, quantitative health risk analysis for toxic air contaminants (TACs) from the construction and operational phases of the Project. No effort is made in the IS/MND to quantify the potential health impacts from TACs generated by construction activities or operational 282
11 | Page
activities from the Project on these sensitive receptors. In addition to TACs from diesel exhaust (assumed to be diesel particulate matter or DPM), the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) analysis of tailpipe emissions shows that in addition to simple alkane hydrocarbons, the emissions also contain benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins. These air toxins make up approximately 22% of the total organic gases (TOGs) emitted from vehicles.

CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust13
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
75070 Acetaldehyde 0.0028
107028 Acrolein 0.0013
71432 Benzene 0.0247
106990 1,3-Butadiene 0.0055
100414 Ethylbenzene 0.0105
50000 Formaldehyde 0.0158
110543 Hexane 0.0160
67561 Methanol 0.0012
78933 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.0002
91203 Naphthalene 0.0005
115071 Propylene 0.0306
100425 Styrene 0.0012
108883 Toluene 0.0576
1330207 Xylenes 0.0480
Clearly the majority of emissions of these compounds from the surrounding sites to the Project site will be associated with passenger vehicles, resulting in significant exposure to benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins.

The City therefore lacks supporting evidence for its conclusion that the emissions from the Project would not result in significant health effects by virtue of the distance to the receptors. The City’s failure to perform such an analysis is clearly a major flaw in the IS/MND and may be placing 13 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/speciation-profiles-used-carb-modeling 283
12 | Page
the residents of the nearby homes at risk from the construction phase and operational phase of the Project.

The inherent toxicity of TACs requires the City to first quantify the concentration of each TAC released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern. Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. The results should then be presented in an EIR prior to approving any agreements with the Proponent or issuing any permits for the Project.

Conclusion
The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed. An EIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
284

Exhibit A:

Curriculum Vitae
285
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
286
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. 287
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
288
Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.
289
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the 290
known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
291
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment 292
Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research 293
were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
294
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane 295
rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.

This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. 296
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner 297
that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
298
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. 299
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. 300
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.
301
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.

Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute 302
Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
303

EXHIBIT B
304
6701-007j

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
r f r a n c o @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
September 6, 2023

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL VIA EMAIL ONLY
Chair Chris Waggener
Vice Chair Terry Delgado
Adrianna Brandt
Mark Ferretiz
Ricardo Rubalcava
Adelanto Planning Commission c/o
Nyeka Allen
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, CA 92301
Email: [email protected]
James Hirsch, Senior Contract Planner
Community Development DepartmentPlanning Division
Email: [email protected]
Dave Martinez, Planning Director
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 1- September 6, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting – Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607) Dear Chair Waggener, Vice Chair Delgado, Honorable Planning Commission Members, Mr. Hirsch, and Mr. Martinez:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) with respect to the September 6, 2023 Adelanto Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item no. 1, the Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (CUP 22-19; LDP 22-15; TPM 20607) (“Project”), proposed by Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc. (“Applicant”).

The Project proposes the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development. The Project would be constructed on five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot (“sf”) convenience store with a 956 sf upper-level office and 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double-sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double-sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed 305
September 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

6701-007j
printed on recycled paper
convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 sf drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 sf multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 sf supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 sf multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 sf automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 sf threestory hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The proposed project site is located east of US 395, north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street in the City. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

The City’s staff report recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and approve the Project’s entitlements. Instead, however, we respectfully request that the Commission continue the public hearing and instruct the City to prepare and circulate for public comment an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that fully analyzes and mitigates the Project’s significant impacts. This request is made for the following reasons: (1) the staff report and the Notice of Public Hearing for the September 6 meeting set forth an incorrect public comment period that conflicts with the Notice of Intent to Adopt MND issued by the City; and (2) the City’s recommendations to adopt the MND and approve the Project do not consider CARE CA’s timely comments demonstrating that an EIR is required.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Adelanto resident Manuel Olivas, Victorville residents Kaleb Gurule and Miguel Hernandez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Adelanto.
306
September 6, 2023

Page 3 ends

6701-007j
printed on recycled paper
CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Adelanto and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD CONTINUE THE

HEARING AND REQUIRE STAFF TO PREPARE AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
As set forth above, the City has issued conflicting and confusing notices with respect to the MND public review and comment period. The City has also failed to consider CARE CA’s written comments detailing the MND’s deficiencies. The City therefore has not complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).1 Accordingly, the Planning Commission may not adopt the MND nor approve the Project, and should instead continue the public hearing and direct staff to prepare and circulate an EIR with a proper CEQA analysis.

A. The City’s Public Notices Create Confusion as to the Public Review and Comment Period
The City submitted its original MND for the Project on the State’s CEQAnet web portal on or about July 3, 2023; that MND bears a date of June 29, 2023 on its cover page. On or about July 28, 2023, the City issued a new Notice of Intent to 1 See Pub. Resources Code § 21000; CEQA Guidelines § 15000. 307
September 6, 2023

Page 4 ends

6701-007j
printed on recycled paper
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“NOI”) and submitted to CEQAnet a revised MND that indicates on its cover page that it was revised on July 26, 2023.

The July 26, 2023 revised MND is the operative CEQA document for the Project.

The July 28, 2023, NOI stated “[t]he City of Adelanto invites you to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public review period begins July 31, 2023 and ends on August 30, 2023 [emphasis in original].”2 However, the Notice of Public Hearing for this hearing states “the IS/MND was circulated for a 30-day period between July 26, 2023 through August 26, 2023 to Responsible Agencies, and interested parties for review and comment and no new effects were identified during the 30-day public comment period.”3 Similarly, the staff report for the September 6 hearing states “[t]he Initial Study and NOI were circulated for a 30-day period between July 26, 2023 through August 26 2023 to Responsible Agencies, and interested parties for review and comment and comments were received from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in a letter dated August 16, 2023 prior to the distribution of this document.”4 CEQA has clear requirements for notifying the public that a lead agency intends to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. These requirements include that it provide a public review and comment period of no less than 30 days where, as here, the proposed MND has been provided to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies.5 Both the Notice of Public Hearing and the staff report erroneously inform the public that the MND public review and comment period ends on August 26, 2023, directly contradicting the NOI which provides that the comment period runs from July 31, 2023 through August 30, 2023. The City’s actions violate one of CEQA’s core principles: the ability of the public to participate via a public review and comment period.6 The agenda report for this hearing states that a public hearing notice was published and sent to property owners within 300 feet of the Project site; CARE CA received the Notice of Public Hearing on August 24, 2023.7 Any member of the public relying on the Notice of Public Hearing would be misled into believing that public comment closed on August 26, when in fact it remained open until August 30. This is a violation of CEQA’s procedural requirements and the public’s due process rights which must be remedied by continuing the hearing and issuing a new public hearing notice which accurately informs the public about the status of the Project and the correct CEQA document. 2 Exhibit A- City of Adelanto Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3 Exhibit B-City of Adelanto Notice of Public Hearing (received August 24, 2023). 4 See City of Adelanto Planning Commission Agenda Report for September 6, 2023 hearing, pg. 11. 5 14 CCR §§ 15105(b) and 15073(a).
6 14 CCR §§ 15105(b),15072 and 15073.
7 See Exhibit B.
308
September 6, 2023

Page 5 ends

6701-007j
printed on recycled paper
B. The City May Not Approve the Project Without Considering CARE CA’s MND Comments
On August 30, 2023, CARE CA submitted timely comments (including expert comments) explaining several ways in which the MND failed to comply with CEQA.

These comments include the following:
• The MND lacks an adequate project description because it states that the Project’s building construction phase will last approximately ten months, while the air emissions modeling assumes that phase will last only 46 days.
• The MND fails to consider the health risks from Valley Fever, which is endemic in San Bernardino County and can infect workers and nearby residents when they are exposed to spores in the soil during ground disturbances such as site preparation and grading during Project construction.
• The MND fails to analyze the Project’s potentially significant health risks associated with air emissions from Project construction and operations.
• The MND’s air quality analysis is incomplete as it fails to account for emissions from the fire pump system and back up emergency generators that will be part of Project operations.
• The MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to western Joshua tree, as required by State, County and City law.

CARE CA’s MND comments provide a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the Project may have significant, unmitigated impacts.

Under CEQA, the City is therefore required to prepare an EIR.

At a minimum, CEQA requires that the Planning Commission (as the City’s decision-making body for this Project) consider the MND along with any comments received during the public review process.8 The Commission may only adopt the MND if “it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment...”9 City staff plainly did not consider CARE CA’s comments in preparing its agenda report recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the MND and approve the Project. The agenda report for this hearing was posted to the City’s website on or before August 30, the same day that CARE CA’s comments were submitted. As set forth above, 8 8 14 CCR § 15074(b).
9 Id.
309
September 6, 2023

Page 6 ends

6701-007j
printed on recycled paper
the agenda report notes receipt of comments from CDFW but makes no mention of the CARE CA comments. Similarly, the Notice of Public Hearing erroneously states that “no new effects were identified during the 30-day public comment period.”10 The Planning Commission should continue the hearing and instruct City staff to prepare and circulate for public comment an EIR that addresses all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. In the alternative, the Planning Commission should continue the hearing so City staff can address CARE CA’s comments on the MND to allow the Commission to make a fully informed decision on the Project as required by CEQA.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely
Richard M. Franco
RMF:ljl
10 See Exhibit B.
310

EXHIBIT A
311
PAGE 1

CITY OF ADELANTO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: Highway 395 & Auburn Ave (CUP 22-19 & LDP 22-15) SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Environmental Review (California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA)
LEAD AGENCY: City of Adelanto
Community Development Department, Planning Division
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, California 92301
APPLICANT: The Applicant is Mr. Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc., 30233 Frontera Del Norte, Highland, California 92346.

CITY/COUNTY: City of Adelanto, San Bernardino County
LOCATION: The proposed project site is located to east of US 395, to the north of Barcelona Avenue, to the south of Auburn Avenue, and to the west of Montezuma Street in the City of Adelanto, California 92301. The project site’s latitude and longitude is 34.593309, - 117.415872. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would total five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E, subdivided from the current four parcels) totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 956 square foot upper-level office with 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The maximum height of the hotel would be 40 feet. The site’s Accessor Parcel Numbers include 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

The project site’s zoning designation is Airport Development District (ADD).

ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION: The proposed project site is located on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped.

As indicated previously, the proposed project site is located on five individual parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, that are currently undeveloped. The site contains a disturbed desert scrub habitat that supports vegetation such as creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), Asian mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). 1 Land uses and
development located in the vicinity of the proposed project site are outlined below:
● North of the project site: Auburn Avenue extends along the project’s northern side. Vacant undeveloped land extends along the north side of the aforementioned roadway. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).2
1 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. June 24, 2022. 2 Google Earth. Website accessed October 26, 2022. and City of Adelanto Zoning Map 312
PAGE 2

CITY OF ADELANTO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ● East of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land extends along the proposed project’s east side. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).

The Southern California Logistics Airport is located further east approximately

0.85 miles away.3
● South of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land abuts the project’s southern side. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).4 ● West of the project site: US-395 abuts the project side to the west. Vacant undeveloped land is located further west of the project site. This area located to the west of the aforementioned roadway is zoned as Mixed Use (MU) and Single Family Residential (R-S5).5
FINDINGS: The environmental analysis provided in the attached Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts. For this reason, the City of Adelanto determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project. The following findings may be made based on the analysis contained in the attached Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project is provided in the attached Initial Study. The project is also described in greater detail in the attached Initial Study.
3 Ibid.
4 Google Earth. Website accessed October 26, 2022. and City of Adelanto Zoning Map 5 Ibid.
313
PAGE 3

CITY OF ADELANTO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW: The City of Adelanto invites you to comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public review period begins July 31, 2023 and ends on August 30, 2023. Written comments must be received at the City of Adelanto Planning Division located at 11600 Air Expressway, Adelanto, California 92301. Attention: James Hirsch, Senior Contract Planner or via email at [email protected] by 5:30 PM on August 07, 2023. Copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be available for public review at the following locations:

City of Adelanto, Planning Division
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, California 92301
Copies of the IS/ND can also be found online at http://www.ci.adelanto.ca.us/. Please send your comments to the attention of James Hirsch, Senior Contract Planner, City of Adelanto, Community Development Department – Planning Division, 11600 Air Expressway, Adelanto, California 92301. Your responses are requested by August 30, 2023.

Marc Blodgett, Project Principal Date: July 28, 2023
314
PAGE 4

CITY OF ADELANTO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIGURE 1. CITYWIDE MAP
315
PAGE 5

CITY OF ADELANTO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIGURE 2. VICINITY MAP
Project Site
316

EXHIBIT B
317
318
319

EXHIBIT C
320
From: Nyeka Allen
To: Richard M. Franco
Cc: Brenda Lopez
Subject: RE: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:24:57 AM
Morning,
The appeal application can be mailed or emailed, and you may pay fees online. Please send over application so I may have our customer service team send a link for you to pay online.

Thanks
Nyeka Allen | Development Services Facilitator
Planning Commission Secretary
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ci.adelanto.ca.us
11600 Air Express Way, Adelanto CA 92301
Office: 760.246.2300 Ext. 11189
Monday – Thursday 7:00am - 6:00pm Closed Friday
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

From: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Nyeka Allen <[email protected]>
Cc: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Thank you. I have a few additional questions.

Does the appeal need to be filed in person (hard copy) over the counter, or online through electronic submission? Who should it be delivered to? If in person, do we need an appointment? How is the fee is paid, via check or credit card?
From: Nyeka Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:21 PM
To: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
321
Cc: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Hello,
This is the application used for appeal. Please check mark appeal and fill out pages that apply.

Thanks
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:34:05 PM
To: Nyeka Allen <[email protected]>
Cc: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Thank you for the information. I note that the form attached seems to be an application for a new development project and not for an appeal. Is there another form for appeals? From: Nyeka Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Cc: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Hello,
Please see attached the CEQA ISMD document and the application to appeal the Planning Commission decision to City Council. The fee to appeal is $2,146.00. The Auburn Travel Center project was approved September 6th. You may appeal within 10 working days from the date of the approval.

Thanks
Nyeka Allen | Development Services Facilitator
Planning Commission Secretary
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ci.adelanto.ca.us
11600 Air Express Way, Adelanto CA 92301
Office: 760.246.2300 Ext. 11189
Monday – Thursday 7:00am - 6:00pm Closed Friday
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the 322
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

From: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:45 PM
To: Nyeka Allen <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Hello Nyeka, can you please answer Mr. Franco’s questions.

Brenda
From: Richard M. Franco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:30 PM
To: Brenda Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Commercial Shopping Center Project LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607 Ms. LopezI’m writing about the Commercial Shopping Center Project (LDP 22-15; CUP 22-19; TPM 20607) approved at the September 6 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please let me know if the City has filed a Notice of Determination and, if so, can you please provide me with a copy? In addition, can you please let me know the fee for appealing the decision to the City Council, and whether the City has a specific form for use in such appeals? Thank you.

Rick Franco
Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Tel: (650) 589-1660
[email protected]
323

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
A D E L A N T O G O V E R N M E N T A L C E N T E R | 1 1 6 0 0 A I R E X P R E S S W A Y | A D E L A N T O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 3 0 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

ADOPT Resolution P-23-17 Adopting the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and approving Conditional Use Permit 22-19, Location and Development Plan 22-15 and Tentative Parcel Map 20607 to establish a total of five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, included in the proposed development.

Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office and 20 pump fueling station with 45 parking spaces. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces in the Airport Development District (ADD): City of Adelanto, San DATE: September 6, 2023
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James Hirsch, Contract Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 20607, Conditional Use Permit 22-19 & Location and Development Plan 22-15 Proposal to construct and operate a commercial shopping center development. There would be a total of five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, included in the proposed development. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office and a 20 pump fueling station. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant . Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building, a 16,702 square foot supermarket , and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building . Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms). The site’s Accessor Parcel Numbers are 0459- 053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053- 08 with a zoning designation of Airport Development District (ADD), City of Adelanto, San Bernardino County.

PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project site is located to the east of US 395, to the north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street in the City of Adelanto, California 92301.. 324
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
2 Bernardino County .based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND:

Applicant: Mr. Gus Otaki

AUBURN TRAVEL CENTER LLC
30233 Frontera Del Norte
Highland, California 92346.

Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines
Existing General Plan &
Current Zoning Designation: Airport Development District (ADD) Surrounding General Plan and Zoning:

North Airport Development District (ADD)
South Airport Development District (ADD)
East Airport Development District (ADD)
West U.S Hwy 395, Mixed Use (MU)
Existing Land Use: The proposed project site is located on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project site is located on five individual parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, that is currently undeveloped. The site contains a disturbed desert scrub habitat that supports vegetation such as creosote bush (Larrea
tridentata), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), Asian mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).8 325
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
3 Surrounding Land Uses: The following chart shows the surrounding land uses:

North Auburn Avenue/ Vacant Undeveloped Land
South Vacant/Undeveloped Land
East Vacant/Undeveloped Land
West U.S. Hwy 395, Vacant /Undeveloped land
ANALYSIS & REVIEW:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant, Mr Gus Otaki , AUBURN TRAVEL CENTER LLC is requesting approval for : Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office with 45 parking spaces and a 20 pump fueling station. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces.

Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 suites) with 158 parking spaces in the Airport Development District (ADD): City of Adelanto, San Bernardino County.

The proposed hotel is anticipated to employ between 70 and 80 persons including a hotel manager, a housekeeping manager, a maintenance engineer, custodians, concierge, front desk receptionists, food service workers, night auditors, and room attendant/housekeepers. The hours of operation for the proposed Hotel would be seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The proposed retail use is anticipated to employ approximately 80 new jobs.

A number of amenities will be provided for the hotel site, including an indoor pool with restroom, outdoor fireplace and lounging areas and partially covered outdoor patio and lounge. The first floor provides an indoor breakfast kitchen with seating areas, an indoor business center, sundries sales area and fitness room.

The convenience store and grocery are proposed to sell wine and beer, both of which require a Type 21 ABC Offsite Liquor License from the State Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) agency. In addition, a sitdown restaurant and rooftop bar in the proposed hotel both will require Type 47 Onsite Liquor Licenses.

The proposed project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) per Zoning Code Chapter

17.25.060 (d), to establish the hotel use because the hotel contains more than 50 rooms and to establish the convenience store selling beer and wine .

A Location and Development Plan (LDP) is also required for the design and layout of the proposed project and a Tentative Parcel Map is required to reconfigure the parcels. 326
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
4 CONSTRUCTION PHASING:

The construction for the proposed project is assumed to commence inJanuary2024and would take approximately thirteen months to complete. The key construction tasks that would occur are outlined in the Paragraphs below.
●Task1Grading.The project site would be graded and ready for construction. The site would be graded to a depth of approximately 6 inches. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include graders, bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete. ●Task 2 Site Preparation. During this phase, the building footings, utility lines, and other underground infrastructure would be installed. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete.
●Task 3 Building Construction. The new building would be constructed during this phase. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include offroad trucks, cranes, and fork-lifts. This task will take approximately ten months to complete. ●Task 4 Paving and Finishing. This concluding task would involve the paving and finishing. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include trucks, backhoes, rollers, pavers, and trenching equipment. The completion of this phase will take approximately one month to complete.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
The Project Site is within the Airport Development Zoning District (ADD) and the hotel is a permitted use in this zoning district with a CUP because it contains over 50 rooms. The convenience store with on-site alcohol sales requires a CUP. The project will expand the necessary non-residential revenue generating uses contemplated by the City’s Adelanto North 2035 Sustainable Plan. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the Adelanto North 2035 Sustainable Plan. More specifically, the project is consistent with Chapter 3, Economic Development, in that it helps to implement Economic Development goals and policies, including job creation, infrastructure expansion and revenue generation. Such convenience stores and hotels will provide revenue to the City and serve the travelling public utilizing the Hwy 395 corridor.
327
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
5 The proposed Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the City’s Adelanto North 2035 Sustainable Plan, Chapter 3, Economic Development. The Context in Chapter 3. cites High Desert Corridor (HDC) and US 395 Improvements which will provide better regional traffic circulation for the City of Adelanto. These proposed routes can bring potential economic growth along the routes of the HDC and US 395 with the development of commercial centers forming nodes, bringing increased economic activity from passing motorists and goods movement transportation.

The City’s Adelanto North 2035 Sustainable Plan Chapter 2, Land Use and Community Design describes the allowable uses in the Airport Development District, (ADD) as a a holding zone for airport supportive uses such as logistics, warehousing and distribution. The Hwy 395 corridor Is key to developing these uses and hotels and convenience stores catering to Hwy 395 travelers will support the development of these uses.

The project is also consistent with the surrounding Airport Development District zoning land uses as designed and conditioned. The project is in compliance with the applicable Airport Development District development and design standards, policies and guidelines outlined in the City’s Zoning Code.

As such, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Adelanto North 2035 Sustainable Plan. 328
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The proposed project is subject to the development standards of the Business Park (ADD) district, which allows for a variety of commercial uses, including the proposed hotel and alcoholic beverage sales uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Table 3 below outlines the development standards for the (ADD) zoning district and demonstrates that the project meets or exceeds all standards.
329
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
7 PARKING, LOADING, ASSET STORAGE
The proposed project must comply with the Parking and Loading Standards of the Chapter 17.65 of the Adelanto Municipal Code (AMC), which requires all commercially zoned developments to provide offstreet parking and loading facilities as well as bicycle spaces and electric vehicle charging spaces.

The Table below provides a summary of the type and required number of parking stalls provided compared to the number of stalls provided.
330
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
8 Access and Parking. Access to the new commercial development would be provided by three new driveway connections along the south side of Auburn Avenue. A total of 408 parking spaces would be provided for the project site.

Parcel A would provide 45 total parking spaces; 17 of these parking spaces would be dedicated to Electric Vehicle parking located on the northwestern portion of the project site, the remaining 27 parking spaces, with 2 ADA compliant stalls, would be located to the north and east of the proposed convenience store.

Parcel B would be provided with 39 total parking spaces that will consist of 2 ADA compliant stalls.

Parcel C would be provided with 161 total parking spaces including 2 truck ramps located on the south side of the proposed supermarket, 8 ADA compliant stalls, and 10 Electric Vehicle parking located on the north side of the retail buildings. Parcel D would be provided with 6 parking spaces along the west and south side of the proposed vacuum stalls. Finally, Parcel E would be provided with 158 parking spaces 331
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
9 with RV parking provided to the south of the parcel and proposed hotel building.1

FENCING/SCREENING, SECURITY
A 7’ tall, Tubular steel (i.e., wrought iron) fencing is provided around the southern, eastern and western boundary lines.

TRAFFIC & SITE ACCESS/CIRCULATION
The analysis of potential impacts related to traffic and circulation indicated that the following mitigation measures would be required:

Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Transportation). The project will be required to install a traffic signal with northbound-southbound protected left turn phases, at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue concurrent with the construction of the project.

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Transportation). The project will be required to construct site and frontage improvements:
a. Within the existing Highway 395 right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the northbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. In the conceptual geometric plan, a Class II bike lane is provided between the right turn lane and the through lane. b. Within the existing Auburn Avenue right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the westbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 2. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the westbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue.
c. Construct Auburn Avenue east of Highway 395 to include curb, gutter, two-way left turn lane, and sidewalk and driveways as shown on the conceptual geometric plan. Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Transportation).

Improvements at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue include configuring the southbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared throughright turn lane

OFF-SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
● The project will be required to install a traffic signal with northbound-southbound protected left turn phases, at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue concurrent with the construction of the project.
332
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
10 ● The project will be required to construct site and frontage improvements. a. Within the existing Highway 395 right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the northbound approach as
shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. In the conceptual geometric plan, a Class II bike lane is provided between the right turn lane and the through lane. b. Within
the existing Auburn Avenue right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the westbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 2. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the westbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue.
c. Construct Auburn Avenue east of Highway 395 to include curb, gutter, two-way left turn lane, and sidewalk and driveways as shown on the conceptual geometric plan. will be required to construct site and frontage improvements. ● Improvements at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue include configuring the southbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane.

As per the revised conditions of approval detailed by the City Engineer, dated August xx 2023, the Project applicant will also be responsible for dedicating right-of-way and constructing various off-site improvements, at U.S. Highway 395 and Auburn Ave, as well as utility tie-ins, etc., as well as payment of relevant Development Impact Fees (DIF).

BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
Hotel
Attachment C shows the proposed conceptual elevations for the three-story, 100 suite Hotel. It will be a modern architectural design with varied color accents and materials that comply with the design guidelines outlined in Section 17.15.060 of the AMC for Commercial buildings. The building provides for appropriate building relief, including a varied roofline, an articulated façade including exposed trusses and varied materials., providing for a distinguishable building base, body and cap. This lodge style building will improve the appearance of both the Highway 395 Corridor and Auburn corridor as 333
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
11 well as the Airport Development Zoning District, which will help to strengthen the local economy and enhance the quality of life for Adelanto residents.

Retail Buildings
Attachment D shows the architecture of the proposed retail buildings and convenience store which are one and two-story buildings that will also provide for a modern architectural design that includes similar exterior design treatments as the hotel building, and similar accent colors to create a compatible and integrated development site. The building design also provides for a varied roofline, façade and roof parapet to screen rooftop mechanical equipment, which meets the intent of the Commercial Design Guidelines outlined in Section 17.15.060 of the AMC.

HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY

INTRODUCTION
The
subject site is approximately 11.85 acres (516,087 sf) with a central drainage easement (1.14 ac). The total disturbed
area for the site will be 10.71 acres. The site is undeveloped, barren with a hydrologic soil grade of C.

Stormwater runoff from the site will detained using underground infiltration chambers. The site plan for the
proposed site indicates the site will be developed with 74,804 sf of landscaped area and 391,799 sf of impervious
surfaces. The site is located in FEMA Flood Zone AE.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance maps obtained for the City of Adelanto, the proposed project site is located in Zone X, which is not located within a 100- year flood plain. The project is required to conform to Section 17.93.060 – Runoff Control of the Adelanto Municipal Code. In addition, stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres, or smaller sites disturbing less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale, are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm-water permitting program. Prior to start of construction, construction operators must obtain coverage under a NPDES permit, which is administered by the State.

AIR QUALITY
The Project site is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for the criteria pollutants. The proposed project does not present a significant adverse environmental impact per the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The applicant will be required to obtain any required permits from the Mojave Desert AQMD prior to any construction activities on the project site. 334
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15 & TPM 20607
September 6, 2023
12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project indicated that the project will not result in any significant adverse immitigable impacts. For this reason, the City of Adelanto has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration, (MND), is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document.

This document evaluated all CEQA issues contained in the current Initial Study Checklist form.

Based on the findings in the Initial Study, the City of Adelanto proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Auburn Travel Center Development, project. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigation Negative Declaration (NOI) was issued for this Project by the City.

The Initial Study and NOI were circulated for a 30-day period between July 26, 2023 through August 26 2023 to Responsible Agencies, and interested parties for review and comment. and comments were received from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in a letter dated August 16, 2023 prior to the distribution of this document. During the draft IS/MND review period, the Draft IS/MND was available for public review at the Development Services public counter. All potential effects of the proposed project have been reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, a final Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes responses to the CDFW letter, has been prepared.

A separate public hearing notice was published and sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site for the September 6, 2023 Planning Commission meeting ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Resolution P-23-17
Attachment B: Conditions of Approval (Planning and Engineering) Attachment C: Hotel Elevations
Attachment D: Retail Building Elevations
Attachment E: Tentative Parcel Map 20607
Attachment F: Location and Zoning Map
Attachment G: Revised Site Plan
The project IS/MND - and Associated Studies are on File at the Planning Department 335

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
Planning ● Environmental Analysis ● Economics ● Mapping ● GIS 2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107 ● HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745 PHONE 626-336-0033 ● CELLULAR 562-556-4542 ● E-MAIL [email protected]

MEMORANDUM
Date: September 5, 2023
To: James Hirsch, Contract Planner, City of Adelanto
From: Marc Blodgett, Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning Subject: Response to Comments from California Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) (Letter dated August 30, 2023)
Comment 1
We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) provide comments on the revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”)1 prepared by the City of Adelanto (“City”) for the Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Project (SCH No. 2023070019; CUP 22-19; LDP 22-15; TPM 20607) (“Project”), proposed by Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc. (“Applicant”).

Response 1
No response is required.

Comment 2
The Project proposes the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development. The Project would be constructed on five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot (“sf”) convenience store with a 956 sf upper-level office and 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double-sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double-sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 sf drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 sf multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 sf supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 sf multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 sf automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 sf three story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The proposed project site is located east of US 395, north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street in the City. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

Response 2
No response is required.

Comment 3
Based on our review of the MND and available supporting documents, we conclude that the MND fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act2 (“CEQA”). The MND fails to disclose and analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and fails to 336

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 2
identify enforceable measures that can reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. As explained in these comments, the City may not rely on an MND for the Project because there is more than a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant air quality and public health impacts from construction and operational emissions and potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The City may not approve the Project until it prepares an environmental impact report (“EIR”) that adequately analyzes all of the Project’s potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts.

Response 3
No response is required.

Comment 4
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Adelanto resident Manuel Olivas, Victorville residents Kaleb Gurule and Miguel Hernandez, the District Council of Ironworkers, and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Adelanto.

Response 4
No response is required.
337

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 3
Comment 5
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.4 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”5 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”6
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR.

This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.8 In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.9
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”10 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.11 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.12
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”13 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 4
With respect to this Project, the MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The City failed to adequately investigate, analyze, and disclose the Project’s potentially significant air quality, health risk, and biological resources impacts. Therefore, the City’s conclusions that the Project will have less than significant impacts are unsupported.15 Whereas the City lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions, Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts to public health and air quality. In addition, the MND lacks substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the Project’s impacts to biological resources will be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.

Response 5
The primary purpose of CEQA is to ensure that decision-makers and the public understand the environmental implications of a specific action or project. An additional purpose of this Initial Study is to ascertain whether the proposed project will have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment once it is implemented. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following:
● To provide the City of Adelanto with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), mitigated negative declaration, or negative declaration for a project;
● To facilitate the project’s environmental assessment early in the design and development of the proposed project;
● To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,
● To determine the nature and extent of any impacts associated the proposed project.

The Initial Study considered all of the CEQA issues and determined that no significant thresholds were exceeded. Therefore, an EIR for this project is not warranted.

Comment 5
The MND does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include a complete, stable, and accurate project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. Without a complete and accurate project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA will be impermissibly narrow, thus minimizing the Project’s impacts and undercutting public review.16
CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on the lead agency rather than the public.

Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to provide a complete and accurate project description.17 Under CEQA, the “project” is defined as “the whole of an action” and the lead agency therefore must describe the entirety of the project’s activities to ensure that all potential impacts of the project will be examined prior to approval.18 An initial study that fails to describe the entire project is fatally deficient: “[A] correct determination of the nature and scope of the project is a critical step in 339

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 5
complying with the mandates of CEQA.”19 Where an agency fails to provide an accurate project description, or fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.20 An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully and intelligently evaluate the project’s potential environmental effects.21 Here, the MND fails to accurately and consistently describe the Project’s construction schedule, resulting in an unreliable and unsupported analysis of the Project’s construction emissions. The construction schedule set forth in the MND’s project description is in direct conflict with the schedule used in the modeling relied on by the MND to estimate the Project’s GHG and other air pollution emissions.

The Project description states that Project construction “is assumed to commence in January 2024 and would take approximately thirteen months to complete.”22 The MND further describes the specific activities that comprise the construction phase, and estimates their duration as follows:
● “Task 1 Grading. The project site would be graded and ready for construction. The site would be graded to a depth of approximately 6 inches. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include graders, bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete.” ● “Task 2 Site Preparation. During this phase, the building footings, utility lines, and other underground infrastructure would be installed. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment.

This task would require one month to complete.”
● “Task 3 Building Construction. The new buildings would be constructed during this phase. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include offroad trucks, cranes, and fork-lifts. This task will take approximately ten months to complete [emphasis added].” ● “Task 4 Paving and Finishing. This concluding task would involve the paving and finishing. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include trucks, backhoes, rollers, pavers, and trenching equipment. The completion of this phase will take approximately one month to complete.”
The MND purports to rely on an Air Quality Impact Analysis and a GHG Analysis to estimate the Project’s construction and operational emissions and to assess the potential environmental impacts of those emissions.23 The AQ Impact Analysis states that “[c]onstruction is expected to comment in September 2024 and will last through December 2024…The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines.”24 Construction duration by phase is set forth in Table 3-2 of the Air Quality Analysis, which states that the “building construction” phase will start on October 28, 2024 and end on December 30, 2024 and will total 46 days.25
Construction emissions for the Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”), a statewide land use computer emissions model.26 For purposes of construction emissions modeling, and in direct contrast to the 10 month estimate in the MND’s Project description, the 340

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 6
MND’s technical appendices assume that the “Building Construction” phase will last only 46 days.27 The AQ Impact Analysis does not explain the basis for assuming a 46- day duration for building construction, nor does it address the inconsistency with the MND’s project description. Furthermore, by assuming that the building construction phase will commence on October 28, 2024, the modeling avoids reporting any emissions for the summer months. As noted in the MND, “emissions…are typically higher during the summer months and represent a worst case scenario.”28 Therefore, by modeling a significantly shorter building construction phase with an October start date—in direct conflict with what is set forth in the MND’s project description—the AQ Impact analysis avoids reporting any summer emissions and likely underestimates the Project’s air quality impacts. These significant disparities between the estimated building construction phase set forth in the MND vs. what is used in the CalEEMod emissions modeling makes the MND’s construction emissions analysis inherently unreliable and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Response 6
According to the MDAQMD, any project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the MDAQMD daily emissions threshold identified previously and noted at the bottom of Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In general, a project will have the potential for a significant air quality impact if any of the following are met:
● Generates total emissions (direct and indirect) that exceeds the MDAQMD thresholds (the proposed project emissions are less than the thresholds as indicated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2); ● Results in a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local background (the proposed project will not result in any violation of these standards); ● Does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plan(s) (the proposed project is in conformance with the City’s Zoning and General Plan); and, ● 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 (HI) (non-cancerous) greater than or equal to 1 (the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor is the site located near any sensitive receptors).

The analysis using the CalEEMod computer model utilized the default variable that are included in the model. These default inputs would provide a maximum or worst case analysis of the construction emissions.

The ISMND detailed the proposed project’s construction and operation will not lead to a violation of the above-mentioned criteria. For ROG emissions to remain under the threshold during the architectural coatings phase, coatings must be below a level of 150 VOC g/L. Even with the shorter construction phases used in the analysis, the emissions were well below the thresholds. The emissions would be even lower when using the longer duration construction phases that were suggested in the comment.

The air quality study that was prepared for the project indicated that specific construction fleet composition may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction. The duration of construction activity was based on CalEEMod model defaults adjusted to account for a 2025 opening year. The associated 341

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 7
construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod defaults with modifications to assign 8-hour working days and account for ground disturbance during site preparation and grading. Please refer to specific detailed modeling inputs/outputs detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided on Table 3-3 in the air quality study.

Estimated Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.08 36.11 34.54 0.06 7.51 4.22 Daily Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Urban Crossroads
As indicated in the above table, the maximum daily emissions are well below the thresholds of significance.

Comment 7
A lead agency’s significance determination must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.29 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.30 Here, the MND lacks substantial evidence supporting its findings with respect to air quality and biological resources impacts.

A. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze or Disclose Air Quality and Health Impacts 1. The MND Fails to Consider Health Risks from Valley Fever
The MND fails to acknowledge, let alone analyze and mitigate, the potentially significant health impacts from Valley Fever associated with Project construction. Valley Fever is a disease that can infect people when they are exposed to fungal spores during ground disturbance, such as the site preparation and grading associated with this Project’s construction. Symptoms include fever, cough, headache, rash, muscle aches, or joint pain. In severe cases, patients develop pneumonia or meningitis, sometimes resulting in death.31 Valley Fever is endemic in the Southwestern United States, including San Bernardino County and the Mojave Desert.32 Dr. Clark’s comments describe the increasing incidence of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County over the last several years.33
As discussed in detail in Dr. Clark’s comments, there is a significant risk of Valley Fever to both workers constructing the Project and nearby residents. Dr. Clark describes the known presence of Valley Fever spores in the soils of the Southern California high desert and San Bernardino County, where the Project site is located. Workers involved in soil-disturbing activities, such as grading, can be exposed to Valley Fever in disturbed and windblown dust containing Valley Fever spores. Nearby workers and other receptors downwind of disturbed soils are also at risk.

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 8
(1) including Valley Fever-specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program; (2) controlling dust exposure with specific measures that exceed conventional dust control, such as (a) applying chemical stabilizers at least 24 hours prior to high wind events, (b) applying water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day, and at least four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust, (c) providing National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respirators for workers with a history of Valley Fever, (d) providing half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use by workers in areas of ground disturbing activities and half-face respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters for use during digging activities, (e) prohibiting eating and smoking at the worksite and providing separate, clean eating areas with handwashing facilities, (f) avoiding outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms, and (g) limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of infection is higher during this season;
(3) preventing transport of Valley Fever spores outside endemic areas by (a) thoroughly cleaning equipment, vehicles and other items before they are moved offsite to other work locations, (b) preventing spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate, (c) loading all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and applying water to the top of the load sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity, or covering haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover, (d) providing workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities, (e) training workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes, and ; and (f) posting warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection;
(4) providing medical surveillance for employees, such as (a) prompt access to medical care, (b) working with a medical professional to develop protocols to evaluate employees who have Valley Fever symptoms.34
Dr. Clark’s comments and analysis provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated health risks to Project construction workers and nearby residents. The City must prepare an EIR that evaluates the risk of Valley Fever and includes appropriate mitigation measures.

Response 7
Valley Fever is caused by the fungus Coccidioides spp. (C. immitis, C. posadasii). Valley Fever derives its name from its discovery in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where it was also referred to as "San Joaquin Valley Fever" or "Desert Rheumatism." The medical name for Valley Fever is coccidioidomycosis (often shortened to "cocci"). Valley Fever is not a "contagious" disease (it is not transmitted from person to person). Valley Fever is contracted only by the inhalation of the coccidioides fungal spores. Even if multiple animals or humans are affected in a household, each infection was acquired by inhaling spores from the soil. Coughing cannot spread it between animals or people. The spores change form in tissues of the body and are not contagious in tissue form. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there have be 0-5 cases 343

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 9
reported in San Bernardino County. According to the California Department of Public Heath, there were 230 cases of Valley Fever in one year (2022). The IS/MND included a number of mitigation measures that specifically focused on eliminating or reducing fugitive dust during construction:

Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 1. The Applicant shall prepare and submit to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project;
Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 2. The Applicant shall ensure that signage, compliant with Rule 403 Attachment, is erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 3. The Applicant shall ensure the use of a water truck to maintain moist disturbed surfaces and actively spread water during visible dusting episodes to minimize visible fugitive dust emissions. For projects with exposed sand or fines deposits (and for projects that expose such soils through earthmoving), chemical stabilization or covering with a stabilizing layer of gravel will be required to eliminate visible dust/sand from sand/fines deposits.

The above mitigation would further reduce the risk of valley fever spores in airborne dust during construction.

Comment 8
The MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Potentially Significant Health Impacts from the Project’s Construction and Operational Emissions
The MND’s air quality analysis includes the conclusion that Project construction and operation will not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, finding that such impacts will be less than significant.35 This conclusion, however, is unsupported by any actual analysis or evidence.

The MND simply recites a list of land use project types for which the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (“MDAQMD”) requires a health risk assessment if within a specified distance to a sensitive receptor. For example, the MND states that, if there are sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a gasoline dispensing facility (as will be included as part of the Project), the lead agency must evaluate whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.36 The MND 344

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 10
states “The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 400 feet to the northwest. Due to the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor, the impacts will be less than significant [emphasis in original].”37 The MND implies that, if MDAQMD does not require an evaluation of health risks by virtue of the distance to sensitive receptors, the potential impacts are less than significant. This is a bare conclusion, unsupported by any evidence, and is not consistent with CEQA’s requirements. The City’s significance determination is not supported by accurate scientific and factual data, as required by CEQA.38 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.39 These standards apply to an agency’s analysis of public health impacts of a project under CEQA. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme Court affirmed CEQA’s mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.40 In Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a 942-acre master-planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they relate to adverse human health effects.41 As the Sierra Club Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”42 The Court concluded that the County’s EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose the nature and extent of public health impacts caused by the project’s air pollution. As the Court explained, the EIR failed to comply with CEQA because after reading the EIR, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”43 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.44
Furthermore, in Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that a CEQA document must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.45 In that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland International Airport.46 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an increase in the release of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) and adopted mitigation measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the Project’s impacts on human health.47 The Court held that mitigation alone was insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated with exposure to TACs.48 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”49 As Dr. Clark explains, the MND makes no effort to quantify the health risk from TACs generated by Project construction and operations, despite recognizing the presence of nearby sensitive receptors.50 He points out that a proper assessment of health risk from TACs requires that the City ”quantify the concentration of each TAC released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.”51 Only then can the City make a determination of the relative significance of these emissions.
345

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 11
The City must prepare and circulate for public review and comment an EIR that properly analyzes, discloses and if necessary, mitigates the Project’s health risk impacts to sensitive receptors.

Response 8
The IS/MND and air quality study prepared for the project evaluated the short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts anticipated to result from the proposed project’s implementation. The air quality study considered the Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) impacts from the proposed project. The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential community located approximately 867 feet east of the project site.

Emissions resulting from the gasoline service station the potential to result in toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., benzene, hexane, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), toluene, xylene) and have the potential to contribute to health risk in the project vicinity. It should be noted that standard regulatory controls would apply to the project in addition to any permits required that demonstrate appropriate operational controls.

The MDAQMD currently does not have a procedure for determining screening-level health risk estimates for gasoline dispensing operations and therefore relies on SCAQMD methodology. For purposes of the evaluation, cancer risk estimates can be made consistent with the methodology presented in CARB and CAPCOA Gasoline Service Station Industry Wide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance which provides screening-level risk estimates for gasoline dispensing operations. Residential and worker risks were estimated using the CARB and CAPCOA Look-up Tool Version 1.0 2_18_22 (24). The risk calculations are presented in Appendix 3.2 of the air quality study.

The center of the fueling canopy is located 870 feet (265 meters) from the nearest residential land use and based on the site plan, the fueling canopy would be approximately 270 feet (82 meters) from future on-site commercial receptors at the proposed convenience store. Based on this screening procedure it is anticipated that no residential sensitive receptors in the project vicinity will be exposed to a cancer risk of greater than

0.19 in one million and that no worker sensitive receptors will be exposed to a cancer risk of greater than

0.11 in one million which is less than the applicable threshold of 10 in one million. It should be noted that this screening-level risk estimate is very conservative (i.e. it would overstate rather than understate potential impacts).

Comment 9
The MND’s Analysis of Operational Emissions is Incomplete Dr. Clark points out that the MND’s AQ Analysis is incomplete as it fails to consider emissions from certain equipment that will be part of the Project’s operations.52 First, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system in order to comply with the California Fire Code and local regulations. Second, the Project will include a grocery store, convenience store, and potentially other retail users that will use refrigeration units requiring back-up generators to ensure continuous operation of the refrigeration units. 346

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 12
Dr. Clark reviewed the CalEEMod modeling outputs for the MND’s operational emissions estimates, and finds that the analysis omits emissions from a fire pump system, refrigeration units and back-up generators. In particular, he points out that “operational emissions from [back-up generators] due to testing and maintenance along with unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events, may be substantial and must be analyzed by the City. The IS/MND lacks any information about these emissions.”
The MND therefore underestimates the Project’s operational emissions. An EIR must be prepared to accurately disclose and mitigate the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with that equipment.

Response 9
Long-term emissions refer to those air quality impacts that will occur once the proposed project has been constructed and is operational. The analysis of long-term operational impacts is summarized in the table below. This analysis also used the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 computer model. The analysis summarized in the table indicates that the operational (long-term) emissions will be well below the MDAQMD daily emissions thresholds.

Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs./day
Emission Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Total (lbs./day) 70.64 46.29 409.92 0.84 27.27 5.38
Daily Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Urban Crossroads
The analysis did not analyze the impacts related to the use of “back-up” generators. Any use of back-up power generation would occur during periods when the main source of power would be discontinued during any outages. Any assumptions that the energy and the attendant air emissions from permanent and backup power back-up would represent an over-estimate of emissions.

Comment 10
The MND’s Conclusions as to ROG Emissions is Unsupported The MND includes an analysis of the Project’s construction and operational emissions with respect to “criteria” pollutants including Reactive Organic Gases (“ROG”).53 Based on CalEEMod results, the MND concludes that ROG emissions will not exceed the MDAQMD significance threshold of 137 lbs./day of ROG. However, the MND also states that “[f]or ROG emissions to remain under the threshold during the architectural coatings phase, coatings must be below a level of 150 VOC g/L.”54 The MND lacks any mitigation measure or other enforceable mechanism to ensure that the Project only uses architectural coatings that are below 150 VOC g/L. Without such measures, it is reasonably foreseeable that coatings exceeding that standard will be used, and cause an exceedance of the significance threshold for ROGs. The 347

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 13
MND’s conclusion that the Project will not result in ROG emissions exceeding the significance threshold is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

Response 10
The MDAQMD Rule 1113 limits the Volatile Organic Chemical (VOC) content of architectural coatings.

Furthermore, the computer model (CalEEMod) developed for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicated the ROG levels would be less than significant (below the MDAQMD thresholds) for both shortterm and long-term impacts.

Comment 11
The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Impacts to Biological Resources 1. The MND Lacks Adequate Mitigation for Impacts to Joshua Trees The MND recognizes that the western Joshua tree is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”), and therefore any attempt to remove a Joshua tree from its current location will require an Incidental Take permit.55 Joshua trees are also protected under the Adelanto Municipal Code,56 the San Bernardino County Code,57 and the newly enacted Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (“WJTCA”), which went into effect on July 10, 2023.58 The MND and its supporting biological resources assessment disclose that the Project site contains seven Joshua Trees, though only one is deemed suitable for relocation/transplantation.59 The remaining six trees will be “cut up and discarded as per City requirements.”60
As an initial matter, the MND fails to acknowledge California’s recent enactment of the WJTCA, which prohibits the take of any western Joshua tree except as authorized in the Act.61 The WJTCA includes a process for obtaining take authorization for western Joshua tree, similar to the take permit process under CESA. Under the take authorization process provided under the WJTCA, the permittee is required to submit a census of trees onsite, include practicable minimization and avoidance measures in the project, and provide proportional compensatory mitigation for take of species.62 The WJTCA also includes an inlieu fee option whereby a permittee may pay a fee, in-lieu of providing compensatory mitigation, for each Western Joshua Tree removed.63 The MND lacks any discussion of the WJTCA or the Project’s compliance with its requirements.

The MND includes Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 11 to address impacts to Joshua trees, and concludes that this mitigation will reduce impacts to less than significant levels.64 The measure is set forth in full below.
“Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 10. The following mitigation measures are applicable to the Joshua Trees that are present on the project site.

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 14

3. Each tree will be moved to a pre-selected location which has already been excavated and will be placed and oriented in the same direction as their original direction. The hole will be backfilled with native soil, and the transplanted tree will be immediately watered. As noted in Section 3.0, a numbered metal tag was placed on the north side of the trees and the trees were also flagged with surveyor’s flagging. The biologist will develop a watering regimen to ensure the survival of the transplanted trees. The watering regimen will be based upon the needs of the trees and the local precipitation.”
However, as is apparent, this measure primarily relates to the single Joshua tree deemed suitable for transplantation but does nothing to address the loss of the other six trees. It simply states that Joshua trees deemed unsuitable for transplantation will be “cut up and discarded as per City requirements.” No such City requirements are cited or discussed. In fact, the MND notes that Joshua trees are protected under Chapter 17.57 of the Adelanto Municipal Code.65 The relevant code provisions provide only that “”[d]evelopment projects will comply with the requirements of the County of San Bernardino for the relocation of Joshua trees.”66 The San Bernardino County Code, in turn, sets forth a number of requirements relating to the removal of Joshua trees, none of which are discussed in the MND nor included as mitigation measures. For example, the San Bernardino County Code includes the following provisions:
• Section 88.01.060 provides that Joshua trees are “regulated desert plants,” which shall not be removed except under a Tree or Plant removal permit in compliance with section 88.01.050. • Section 88.01.050 sets forth certain findings required for approval of removal of a regulated tree or plant, including that “[t]he location of the regulated tree or plant and/or its dripline interferes with an allowed structure, sewage disposal area, paved area, or other approved improvement or ground disturbing activity and there is no other alternative feasible location for the improvement [emphasis added].”
• Section 88.01.050 further provides that, in the Desert Region (which includes Adelanto), removal of “specimen size” Joshua trees requires a finding that no other reasonable alternative exists for the development of the land. Specimen size Joshua trees are defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria: (a) circumference equal or greater than 50 inches measured at four and one-half feet above natural grade level; (b) total tree height of 15 feet or greater; (c) trees possessing a bark like trunk; and (d) a cluster of ten or more individual trees, of any size, growing in close proximity to each other.
• Section 88.01.050 also includes a provision that the applicable review authority may require certification from an appropriate arborist, registered professional forester or a Desert Native Plant Expert that the proposed tree removal, replacement or revegetation activities are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with Chapter 88.01. 349

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 15
The MND contains no discussion of any of these provisions, and lacks information from which the required findings can be made. There is nothing in the record supporting a finding that the six Joshua trees slated for removal interfere with an allowed structure and that there is no other alternative feasible location for the Project.

The MND also lacks sufficient evidence to determine whether any of the six Joshua trees qualify as “specimen size,” as neither the MND nor the supporting biological technical reports include information about the trees’ circumference or a description of their bark. Finally, the MND does not acknowledge the requirement for a Tree or Plant removal permit under San Bernardino County Code section 88.01.050.

Response 11
The ISMND included a comprehensive analysis of biological resources, including Western Joshua Trees.

General biological surveys were conducted on June 21, 2022, during which biologists from RCA Associates, Inc. initially walked meandering transects throughout the property. During the surveys, data was collected on the plant and animal species present on the site. The property was also evaluated for the presence of habitats which might support sensitive species. In Appendix C of the IS/MND, a Protected Plant Preservation Plan was also provided by RCA Associates, Inc to evaluate present Joshua Trees and determine the suitability for relocation or disposal. There are 7 Joshua trees located on the property and 1 of the trees are suitable for relocation/transplanting. This conclusion was based on: (1) trees which were one foot or greater in height and less than twelve feet tall (approximate); (2) in good health; (3), two branches or less; (4) density of trees (i.e., no clonal trees); (5) no exposed roots; (6) and trees that are not leaning over excessively. The IS/MND included the following mitigation to address the project’s potential impacts to the Western Joshua Tree:

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 10. The following mitigation measures are applicable to the Joshua Trees that are present on the project site.

1. The Joshua trees will be retained in place or replanted somewhere on the site where they can remain in perpetuity or will be transplanted to an off-site area approved by the city where they can remain in perpetuity. Joshua trees which are deemed not suitable for transplanting will be cut-up and discarded as per City requirements.

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 16
a numbered metal tag was placed on the north side of the trees and the trees were also flagged with surveyor’s flagging. The biologist will develop a watering regimen to ensure the survival of the transplanted trees. The watering regimen will be based upon the needs of the trees and the local precipitation.

The CDFW is currently revising the ITP protocols and the project would be required to adhere to these future requirements.

Comment 12
The MND Defers Analysis and Mitigation of the Project’s Hydrological Impacts The MND does not comply with CEQA as it impermissibly defers analysis and mitigation of the Project’s potentially significant hydrological impacts. The Project site is currently undeveloped. While no riparian areas or wetlands were observed on the site during the biological study, “a potential jurisdictional channel was observed where a blue line channel crosses the northern boundary of the project site and runs southeast exiting the site at the eastern border.”67 However, rather than further assessing the channel and the Project’s potential impacts on it, the MND defers any analysis to some unspecified later time by relying on Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 11: “A comprehensive jurisdictional delineation may be required at a future date due to a possible downstream connection or nexus with a more significant body to determine if the channel meets the criteria as Waters of the State (WoS) and/or Waters of the U.S. (WoUS).”68 The MND concludes that, with this mitigation measure, impacts will be less than significant.

The MND’s findings with respect to hydrological impacts are unsupported by substantial evidence and violate CEQA. The MND makes no effort to evaluate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on the “potential jurisdictional channel” observed on the Project site, and instead simply asserts that a comprehensive jurisdictional delineation “may” be required at some unspecified future date. Without performing such comprehensive delineation, the public and City decision makers have no way of knowing whether there is a jurisdictional channel that connects to waters of the State or U.S. The MND therefore violates CEQA’s requirement to analyze and disclose the severity of Project impacts before the Project is approved.69 The City must prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes and mitigates such impacts.

Response 12
According to the biological study, no wetland areas or riparian habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations. However, a potential jurisdictional channel was observed where a blue line channel crosses the northern boundary of the project site and runs southeast exiting the site at the eastern border. A comprehensive jurisdictional delineation may be required at a future date due to a possible downstream connection or nexus with a wash or drainage to determine if the channel meets the criteria as Waters of the State (WoS) and/or Waters of the U.S. (WoUS). The following mitigation is designed to ensure that any potential permits that may be required will be obtained:

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 17
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) stating that notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is not required for the Project, or the Project applicant should obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the Project.

The proposed project is located in a “Zone AE” flood hazard zone. Adelanto Municipal code 17.91.030 requires natural drainage courses to be preserved whenever practicable, consistent with the need to minimize flood and erosion hazards. Stream banks shall be stabilized with landscaping, rock, or other materials that harmonize with the natural setting and contain flows and control erosion. The predevelopment condition for the project site is undeveloped with almost no cover or vegetation. The existing drainage path of the site sheet flows to the central drainage easement. The runoff then flows northwesterly offsite. The site is divided into three distinct drainage areas, referred to as DA-1, DA-2, and DA-3 in the hydrology study. Each drainage area is graded to sheet flow runoff toward proposed curb and gutters, as well as v-gutters. The runoff will then be conveyed to drain inlets where the storm drain pipes will convey to each drainage area’s respective underground infiltration chambers. Overflow will flow into the central drainage easement.

The existing peak runoff from the project area was calculated to be 2.64 cubic feet per second (cfs), and

16.32 cfs onsite for the 2- year, and 100-year storm, respectively. The proposed peak runoff from the project area after improvements was calculated to be 7.15 cfs, and 23.48 cfs onsite for the 2-year, and 100- year storm, respectively. The existing runoff volumes from the project area was calculated to be 0.1537 Acft (6,695 cf), and 1.9087 Ac-ft (83,143 cf) for the 2-year and 100-year storm event, respectively. The proposed runoff volume from the project area after improvements was calculated to be 0.6486 Ac-ft (28,253 cf), and 2.1957 Ac-ft (95,645 cf) for the 2-year and 100-year storm, respectively. Pre-development conditions will be maintained through onsite detention of runoff. Detained runoff will be infiltrated into the ground. Stormwater runoff storage will be provided via underground infiltration chambers. The storage volumes for the chambers are 6,124 cf, 7,729 cf, and 6,490 cf for DA-1, DA-2, and DA-3, respectively. The hydrology report indicates that post project drainage will be maintained using onsite drainage and infiltration.

Comment 13
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence demonstrating that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment.70 As discussed herein, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and that are not adequately analyzed or mitigated. The MND also fails to contain the basic information and analysis required by CEQA, deficiencies which “cannot be dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects.”71 The City’s findings regarding Project impacts either do not comply with the law or are not supported by substantial evidence. The City cannot approve the Project until it prepares an EIR that resolves these issues and complies with CEQA’s requirements.
352

BLODGETTBAYLOSISENVIRONMENTALPLANNING
PAGE 18
Response 13
The comment is noted for the record. The City has determined that the IS/MND and the technical appendices have adequately identified the proposed project’s impacts. 353
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 1
DRAFT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH) NO. 2023070019

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
US-395 & AUBURN AVENUE
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607

ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
APNS 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, & 0459-053-08 LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF ADELANTO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
11600 AIR EXPRESSWAY
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA 92301
REPORT PREPARED BY:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745
JUNE 29, 2023
REVISED JULY 26, 2023
ADLT 083
354
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 2
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
355
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 3

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: US-395 & Auburn Avenue (CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607) PROJECT APPLICANT: The Applicant for the proposed project is Mr. Gus Otaki, Lifetime Realty Investments Inc., 30233 Frontera Del Norte, Highland, California 92346.

PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project site is located to the east of US 395, to the north of Barcelona Avenue, south of Auburn Avenue, and west of Montezuma Street in the City of Adelanto, California 92301. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08.

CITY AND COUNTY: City of Adelanto, San Bernardino County.

PROJECT: The City of Adelanto is reviewing an application submitted by Mr. Gus Otaki to construct and operate a commercial shopping center development. There would be a total of five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E), subdivided from the current four parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, included in the proposed development. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 945 square foot upper-level office with 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot, three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The maximum height of the hotel would be 40-feet. The site’s Accessor Parcel Numbers are 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459- 053-08 with a zoning designation of Airport Development District (ADD).

EVALUATION FORMAT: The attached initial study is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). Specifically, the preparation of the attached Initial Study was guided by Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project was evaluated based on its effect on 21 major categories of environmental factors. Each factor is reviewed by responding to a series of questions regarding the impact of the project on each element of the overall factor. The Initial Study checklist includes a formatted analysis that provides a determination of the effect of the project on the factor and its elements. The effect of the project is categorized into one of the following four categories of possible determinations:

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less than Significant
With Mitigation Incorporated
Less than
Significant No Impact
Substantiation is then provided to justify each determination. One of the four following conclusions is then provided as a summary of the analysis for each of the major environmental factors.

No Impact: No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Less than Significant Impact: No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Possible significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated and mitigation measures are required as a condition of the project’s approval to reduce these impacts to a level below significance.

Potentially Significant Impact: Significant adverse impacts have been identified or anticipated. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to evaluate these impacts. 356
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below will be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in the attached Initial Study.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources X Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Energy
X Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population & Housing Public Services
Recreation X Transportation & Traffic X Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following finding is made:

The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION shall be prepared.

Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there shall not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION shall be prepared.

The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
The project is also described in greater detail in the attached Initial Study. 357
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................7

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................................................7

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY .................................................................................................................7

1.3 INITIAL STUDY’S ORGANIZATION..................................................................................................................8 SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................... 9

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .....................................................................................................................................9

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..........................................................................................................................9

2.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.........................................................................10

2.4 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT...................................................................11

2.5 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................11 Exhibit 2-1 Regional Map........................................................................................................................ 12 Exhibit 2-2 Citywide Map........................................................................................................................ 13 Exhibit 2-3 Local Map ............................................................................................................................. 14 Exhibit 2-4 Aerial Image of Project Site................................................................................................. 15 Exhibit 2-5 Site Plan of Project Site ........................................................................................................ 16 Exhibit 2-6 Building Elevations .............................................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 2-7 Building Elevations .............................................................................................................. 18

2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS.......................................................................................................................... 19 SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..........................................................21

3.1 AESTHETICS ...............................................................................................................................................22

3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES....................................................................................................25 Exhibit 3-1 Agricultural Map ..................................................................................................................28

3.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................29 Exhibit 3-2 Air Quality Sensitive Receptors Map..................................................................................34

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................35

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................46

3.6 ENERGY.....................................................................................................................................................50

3.7 GEOLOGY & SOILS......................................................................................................................................52 Exhibit 3-3 Geology Map.........................................................................................................................58

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................59

3.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................................................................................64

3.10 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY............................................................................................................. 68 Exhibit 3-4 Water Resources Map..........................................................................................................72

3.11 LAND USE & PLANNING............................................................................................................................73 Exhibit 3-4 Land Use and Zoning Map .................................................................................................. 75

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................76

3.13 NOISE ......................................................................................................................................................78 Exhibit 3-5 Noise Sources and Loudness Scale .....................................................................................79 Exhibit 3-6 Noise Sensitive Land Uses .................................................................................................. 84

3.14 POPULATION & HOUSING.........................................................................................................................85

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES.....................................................................................................................................87 Exhibit 3-7 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 90

3.16 RECREATION............................................................................................................................................ 91

3.17 TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................................................................92

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................97

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 101

3.20 WILDFIRE .............................................................................................................................................105 Exhibit 3-7 FHSZ Map ........................................................................................................................... 107

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..............................................................................................108 SECTION 4. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................109

4.1 FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................109

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING ......................................................................................................................109 358
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 PAGE 6
SECTION 5. REFERENCES...................................................................................117

5.1 PREPARERS ...............................................................................................................................................117

5.2 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................117

APPENDICES (SEPARATE COVER)
APPENDIX A –AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B – ENERGY & UTILITIES WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX C – BIOLOGICAL STUDY
APPENDIX D – TRAFFIC STUDY
APPENDIX E – GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
359
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 7
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This Initial Study analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development in the City of Adelanto. The proposed project would total five individual parcels (referred to as Parcels A through E, subdivided from the current four parcels) totaling

11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 956 square foot upper-level office with 45 parking spaces. A fueling canopy with eight double sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces. The maximum height of the hotel would be 40-feet. The site’s Accessor Parcel Numbers include 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08. The project site’s zoning designation is Airport Development District (ADD).1

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
The City of Adelanto is the designated Lead Agency, and as such, the City will be responsible for the project’s environmental review. Section 21067 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a Lead Agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.2 As part of the proposed project’s environmental review, the City of Adelanto has authorized the preparation of this Initial Study. 3 The primary purpose of CEQA is
to ensure that decision-makers and the public understand the environmental implications of a specific action or project. An additional purpose of this Initial Study is to ascertain whether the proposed project will have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment once it is implemented. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following:
● To provide the City of Adelanto with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), mitigated negative declaration, or negative declaration for a project;
● To facilitate the project’s environmental assessment early in the design and development of the proposed project;
● To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,
● To determine the nature and extent of any impacts associated the proposed project.

Although this Initial Study was prepared with consultant support, the analysis, conclusions, and findings made as part of this document’s preparation fully represent the independent judgment and position of the City of Adelanto in its capacity as the Lead Agency. The City also determined, as part of this Initial Study’s 1 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 2 California, State of. California Public Resources Code. Division 13, Chapter 2.5. Definitions. as Amended 2001. §21067. 3 Ibid. (CEQA Guidelines) §15050.
360
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 8
preparation, that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project’s CEQA review.

Certain projects or actions may also require oversight approvals or permits from other public agencies.

These other agencies are referred to as Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to Sections 15381 and 15386 of the State CEQA Guidelines.4 This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to the State of California Office of Planning Research (the State Clearinghouse). A 30-day public review period will be provided to allow these entities and other interested parties to comment on the proposed project and the findings of this Initial Study.5 Questions and/or comments should be submitted to the following contact person:

James Hirsch, Contract Planner
City of Adelanto, Planning Division
11600 Air Expressway
Adelanto, California 92301

1.3 INITIAL STUDY’S ORGANIZATION
The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this Initial Study:
● Section 1 Introduction provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study's preparation and insight into its composition.
● Section 2 Project Description provides an overview of the existing environment as it relates to the project area and describes the proposed project’s physical and operational characteristics. ● Section 3 Environmental Analysis includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with the construction and the subsequent operation of the proposed project. ● Section 4 Conclusions summarizes the findings of the analysis. ● Section 5 References identifies the sources used in the preparation of this Initial Study. 4 California, State of. Public Resources Code Division 13. The California Environmental Quality Act. Chapter 2.5, Section 21067 and Section 21069. 2000.
5 California, State of. Public Resources Code Division 13. The California Environmental Quality Act. Chapter 2.6, Section 2109(b). 2000.
361
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 9
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Adelanto is located approximately 85 miles northeast of Downtown Los Angeles and 40 miles north of the City of San Bernardino. Adelanto is bounded on the north by unincorporated San Bernardino County; on the east by Victorville and unincorporated San Bernardino County; on the south by Hesperia and unincorporated San Bernardino County; and on the west by unincorporated San Bernardino County.6 Regional access to the City of Adelanto is provided by three area highways: the Mojave Freeway (Interstate 15), extending in a southwest to northeast orientation approximately three miles east of the City; U.S.

Highway 395, traversing the eastern portion of the City in a northwest to southeast orientation; and Palmdale Road (State Route 18), which traverses the southern portion of the City in an east to west orientation.7 The project site’s latitude and longitude is 34.593309, -117.415872. The location of Adelanto, in a regional context, is shown in Exhibit 2-1.

A citywide map is provided In Exhibit 2-2. The proposed project site is located to east of US 395, to the north of Barcelona Avenue, to the south of Auburn Avenue, and to the west of Montezuma Street in the City of Adelanto, California 92301. The corresponding Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) are 0459-053-56, 0459- 053-57, 0459-053-58, and 0459-053-08. A local vicinity map is provided in Exhibit 2-3. An aerial photograph of the site and the surrounding area is provided in Exhibit 2-4.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project site is located on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. As indicated previously, the proposed project site is located on five individual parcels, totaling 11.81 acres, that are currently undeveloped. The site contains a disturbed desert scrub habitat that supports vegetation such as creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), Asian mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). 8 The site and the surrounding area
are provided in Exhibit 2-4. Land uses and development located in the vicinity of the proposed project site are outlined below:
● North of the project site: Auburn Avenue extends along the project’s northern side. Vacant undeveloped land extends along the north side of the aforementioned roadway. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).
9 ● East of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land extends along the proposed project’s east side.

This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD). The Southern California Logistics Airport is located further east approximately 0.85 miles away. 10 6Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. 2022.
7 Google Earth. Website accessed October 26, 2022.
8 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
9 Google Earth. Website accessed October 26, 2022. and City of Adelanto Zoning Map 10 Ibid.
362
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 10
● South of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land abuts the project’s southern side. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).11
● West of the project site: US-395 abuts the project side to the west. Vacant undeveloped land is located further west of the project site. This area located to the west of the aforementioned roadway is zoned as Mixed Use (MU) and Single Family Residential (R-S5). 12 An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding area is provided in Exhibit 2-4

2.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This Initial Study analyzes the environmental impacts associated with a commercial development totaling

11.81 acres, included in the proposed development. The proposed project would involve the development of the currently vacant site as a shopping center that would include an automotive fueling area, a car wash, other restaurant and retail uses, and a hotel. The proposed project would consist of the following elements:
● Parcel A. A 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 956 upper-level office and a fueling station would be constructed on a 61,973 square foot (1.4 acres) parcel located to the northwestern portion of the project site. A fueling canopy with eight double sided fuel dispensers and an alternative fuel with 2 double sided fuel dispensers, would be constructed to the north of the proposed convenience store. Three underground (fuel) storage tanks (UST), one 87 octane UST, one 91 octane UST, and a diesel UST, will be installed underground between the fueling station and the proposed convenience store. A propane tank will also be installed on the northwestern most corner of the project site.13
● Parcel B. On this 34,925 square foot (0.80-acre) parcel, a 3,400 square foot drive thru restaurant would be constructed on the central western portion of the project site, south of Parcel A.14 ● Parcel C. Three buildings would be constructed on this 144,926 square foot (3.3-acre) parcel. A 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building would be constructed on the southwestern corner of the project site. Adjacent to this building would be a 16,702 square foot supermarket. Finally, a 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building would be constructed in the southeastern corner of the project site.
15 ● Parcel D. A 5,577 square foot automated carwash would be constructed on a 116,409 square foot (2.7 acre) parcel. A total of 37 vacuum stations would be installed in the southwestern portion of the parcel.
16 ● Parcel E. A 68,054 square foot three-story hotel, that would consist of 100 rooms, would be constructed in the northeastern portion of the project site. A pool and recreation area will also be constructed south of the hotel. The hotel would have a maximum height of 40-feet. ● Access and Parking. Access to the new commercial development would be provided by three new driveway connections along the south side of Auburn Avenue. A total of 408 parking spaces would be provided for the project site. Parcel A would provide 45 total parking spaces; 17 of these parking 11 Google Earth. Website accessed October 26, 2022. and City of Adelanto Zoning Map 12 Ibid.
13 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
363
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 11
spaces would be dedicated to Electric Vehicle parking located on the northwestern portion of the project site, the remaining 27 parking spaces, with 2 ADA compliant stalls, would be located to the north and east of the proposed convenience store. Parcel B would be provided with 39 total parking spaces that will consist of 2 ADA compliant stalls. Parcel C would be provided with 161 total parking spaces including 2 truck ramps located on the south side of the proposed supermarket, 8 ADA compliant stalls, and 10 Electric Vehicle parking located on the north side of the retail buildings.

Parcel D would be provided with 6 parking spaces along the west and south side of the proposed vacuum stalls. Finally, Parcel E would be provided with 158 parking spaces with RV parking provided to the south of the parcel and proposed hotel building.17 The proposed project’s site plan is illustrated in Exhibit 2-5. The proposed project’s building elevations are illustrated in Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7.

2.4 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project’s anticipated hours of operation will vary depending on the various proposed uses of the project. The proposed retail use is anticipated to employ approximately 80 new jobs. This employment rate figure assumes one new job for every 1,009 square feet of floor area for regional retail land use; 2,544 square feet of floor area for hotel/motel use; and 124 square feet of floor area for other retail and service commercial related uses.18

2.5 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
The construction for the proposed project is assumed to commence in January 2024 and would take approximately thirteen months to complete. The key construction tasks that would occur are outlined in the paragraphs below.
● Task 1 Grading. The project site would be graded and ready for construction. The site would be graded to a depth of approximately 6 inches. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include graders, bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment. This task would require one month to complete. ● Task 2 Site Preparation. During this phase, the building footings, utility lines, and other underground infrastructure would be installed. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include bulldozers, offroad trucks, back-hoes, and trenching equipment.

This task would require one month to complete.
● Task 3 Building Construction. The new buildings would be constructed during this phase. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include offroad trucks, cranes, and fork-lifts. This task will take approximately ten months to complete. ● Task 4 Paving and Finishing. This concluding task would involve the paving and finishing. The typical heavy equipment used during this construction phase would include trucks, backhoes, rollers, pavers, and trenching equipment. The completion of this phase will take approximately one month to complete.
17 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 18 The Natelson Company. Employment Density Study, Summary Report 364
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 12
EXHIBIT 2-1 REGIONAL MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
365
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 13
EXHIBIT 2-2 CITYWIDE MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
366
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 14
EXHIBIT 2-3 LOCAL MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
367
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 15
EXHIBIT 2-4 AERIAL IMAGE OF PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
368
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 16
EXHIBIT 2-5 SITE PLAN OF PROJECT SITE (MAY 2023)
SOURCE: STEENO DESIGN STUDIO INC.
369
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 17
EXHIBIT 2-6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
SOURCE: STEENO DESIGN STUDIO INC.
370
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 18
EXHIBIT 2-7 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
SOURCE: STEENO DESIGN STUDIO INC.
371
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 19

2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The City has initiate a Zoning Code amendment (revision to Appendix A) that would permit convenience stores, hotels, and gasoline retailers in the ADD zones. A Discretionary Action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of Adelanto) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The following discretionary approvals are required:
● The approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-19) for the sales of alcohol for off-site consumption;
● The approval of a Land Development Plan (LDP 22-15);
● The approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20607); and, ● Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

All potentially interested tribes identified by the NAHC were also contacted pursuant to AB-52 for information regarding their knowledge of cultural resources that were within or near the project area. These groups include: the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band Luiseno Indians, and the Serrano Nation.
372
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 20
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
373
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 21
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section of the Initial Study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project’s implementation. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include the following:

Aesthetics (Section 3.1);
Agricultural &Forestry Resources (Section 3.2);
Air Quality (Section 3.3);
Biological Resources (Section 3.4);
Cultural Resources (Section 3.5);
Energy (Section 3.6);
Geology & Soils (Section 3.7);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (Section 3.8);
Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Section 3.9);
Hydrology & Water Quality (Section 2.39);
Land Use & Planning (Section 3.11);
Mineral Resources (Section 3.12);
Noise (Section 3.13);
Population & Housing (Section 3.14).

Public Services (Section 3.15);
Recreation (Section 3.16);
Transportation (Section 3.17);
Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.18);
Utilities (Section 3.19);
Wildfire (Section 3.20); and,
Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 3.21).

The environmental analysis included in this section reflects the Initial Study Checklist format used by the City of Adelanto in its environmental review process (refer to Section 1.3 herein). Under each issue area, an analysis of impacts is provided in the form of questions followed by corresponding detailed responses. For the evaluation of potential impacts, questions are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation. To each question, there are four possible responses:
● No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
● Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may have the potential for affecting the environment, although these impacts will be below levels or thresholds that the City of Adelanto or other responsible agencies consider to be significant.
● Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project may have the potential to generate impacts that will have a significant impact on the environment. However, the level of impact may be reduced to levels that are less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
● Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in environmental impacts that are significant.

This Initial Study will assist the City of Adelanto in deciding as to whether there is a potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment associated with the implementation of the proposed project. 374
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 22

3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 
B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

C. Would the project in nonurbanized areas substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zinging and other regulations governing scenic quality?

D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on aesthetics if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would have an adverse effect on a scenic vista, except as provided in PRC Sec. 21099.
● The proposed project would have an adverse effect on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. ● The proposed project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. or, ● The proposed project would, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

The evaluation of aesthetics and aesthetic impacts is generally subjective, and it typically requires the identification of key visual features in the area and their importance. The characterization of aesthetic impacts involves establishing the existing visual characteristics including visual resources and scenic vistas that are unique to the area. Visual resources are determined by identifying existing landforms (e.g., topography and grading), views (e.g., scenic resources such as natural features or urban characteristics), and existing light and glare characteristics (e.g., nighttime illumination). Changes to the existing aesthetic environment associated with the proposed project’s implementation are identified and qualitatively evaluated based on the proposed modifications to the existing setting and the viewers’ sensitivity. The project-related impacts are then compared to the context of the existing setting, using the threshold criteria discussed above.
375
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 23
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ● No Impact The dominant scenic views from the project site include the views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, located 20 miles south and southeast of the site. In addition, local views are already dominated by regional Southern California Edison (SCE) transmissions towers and transmission lines located to the south of the project site. Views from the mountains will not be obstructed. Once operational, views of the aforementioned mountains will continue to be visible from the public right-of-way. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Transportation, none of the roadways located adjacent to the proposed project site are designated scenic highways and there are no state or county designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.19 There are no officially designated highways located near the City. The nearest highways that are eligible for designation as a scenic highway include SR-2 (from SR-210 to SR-138), located 11 miles southwest of the City; SR-58 (from SR-14 to I-15), located 20 miles north of the City; SR-138 (from SR-2 to SR-18), located 13 miles south of the City; SR-173 (from SR-138 to SR-18), located 15 miles southeast of the City; and, SR-247 (from SR-62 to I-15), located 23 miles east of the City.

The City of Adelanto 2035 Sustainable Plan identifies prominent view sheds within the City. These view sheds are comprised primarily of undeveloped desert land, the Mojave River, and distant views of the mountains.20Lastly, the project site does not contain any buildings listed in the State or National registrar.

As a result, no impacts will occur.

C. Would the project in nonurbanized areas substantially degraded the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ● No Impact There are no protected views in the vicinity of the project site and the City does not contain any scenic vistas.

In addition, the City does not have any zoning regulations or other regulations governing scenic quality other that the development standards for which the new building will conform to. As a result, no impacts will occur.

D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ● No Impact
The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is located 3,900 feet north of the project site. Projectrelated sources of nighttime light would include parking area exterior lights, security lighting, and vehicular headlights. The proposed project will not expose any sensitive receptors to daytime or nighttime light trespass since the project will be in conformance with Section 17.90.040 – Lighting of the City of Adelanto Municipal Code. The City’s Code includes the following requirements related to outdoor lighting:
19 California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. 20 MIG Hogle-Ireland. Adelanto North 2035 Comprehensive Sustainable Plan. August 27, 2014. 376
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 24
● All on-site lighting shall be energy efficient, stationary, and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.
● Light fixtures shall be shielded so no light is emitted above the horizontal plane of the bottom of the light fixture.
● Light fixtures shall be shielded so no light above 0.5 footcandle spills over onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. There shall be no spillover (0.0 footcandle) onto adjacent residential used or zoned properties.

The proposed project must also comply with the State’s applicable regulatory specifications requirements that all outdoor lighting for security purposes must be shielded and downward facing. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3 § 16304(a)(7). As a result, no impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project will not expose any sensitive receptors to daytime or nighttime light trespass since the project will be in conformance with Section 17.90.040 – Lighting of the City of Adelanto Municipal Code. The proposed project must also comply with the State’s applicable regulatory specifications requirements that all outdoor lighting for security purposes must be shielded and downward facing. (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 3 § 16304(a)(7). As a result, no light-related impacts are anticipated. The analysis of aesthetics concluded that no impact on these resources would occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required. 377
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 25

3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural uses? 
B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act Contract? 
C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? 
E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on agriculture and forestry resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. ● The proposed project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
● The proposed project would conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
● The proposed project would result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. ● The proposed project would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to track changes in agricultural land use and to help preserve areas of Important Farmland. It divides the state's land into eight categories of land use designation based on soil quality and 378
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 26
existing agriculture uses to produce maps and statistical data. These maps and data are used to help preserve productive farmland and to analyze impacts on farmland. Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance are all Important Farmland and are collectively referred to as Important Farmland in this analysis. The highest rated Important Farmland is Prime Farmland. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the Williamson Act, allows a city or county government to preserve agricultural land or open space through contracts with landowners. The County has areas that are currently agriculture preserves under contract with San Bernardino County through the Williamson Act of 1965. Contracts last 10 years and are automatically renewed unless a notice of nonrenewal is issued.

A. Would the projectConvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses? ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site does not contain any areas of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses are located onsite or adjacent to the property.

The implementation of the proposed project would not involve the conversion of any prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance to urban uses. As a result, no impacts will occur.21 B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act Contract? ● No Impact.

The project site is currently zoned as Airport Development District (ADD). The property is vacant and undeveloped and there are no agricultural uses located within the site that would be affected by the project’s implementation. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.22As a result, no impacts will result.

C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? ● No Impact.

The project site is currently vacant. There are no forest lands or timber lands located within or adjacent to the site. Furthermore, the site’s existing zoning designation does not contemplate forest land or timber land uses. As a result, no impacts will occur.

D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ● No Impact.

No forest lands are located within the project site. The proposed use will be restricted to the site and will not affect any land under the jurisdiction of the BLM. As a result, no impacts will result. 21 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping, and Monitoring Program.

California Important Farmland Finder.
22California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. 379
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 27
E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? ● No Impact.

The project would not involve the disruption or damage of the existing environment that would result in a loss of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because the project site is currently vacant and does not contain any significant vegetation. As a result, no impacts will result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of agricultural and forestry resources indicated that no impact on these resources would occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required. 380
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 28
EXHIBIT 3-1 AGRICULTURAL MAP
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
381
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 29

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 
B. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?

C. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 
D. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
● The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
● The proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ● The proposed project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for the criteria pollutants listed below. Projects in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) generating construction and operational-related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds are considered to be significant under CEQA. ● Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, and damages materials and vegetation.

Ozone is formed a by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight). ● Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain and is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels emitted as vehicle exhaust. The threshold is 548 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO). 382
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 30
● Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a yellowish-brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. NOx is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with oxygen. The daily threshold is 137 pounds per day of nitrogen oxide (NOx). ● Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms. The daily threshold is 137 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx).
● PM10 and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles since fine particles can more easily cause irritation. The daily threshold is 82 pounds per day of PM10 and 65 pounds per day of PM2.5.
● Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) refers to organic chemicals that, with the interaction of sunlight photochemical reactions may lead to the creation of “smog.” The daily threshold is 137 pounds per day of ROG.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ● No Impact.

Air quality impacts may occur during the construction or operation of a project, and may come from stationary (e.g., industrial processes, generators), mobile (e.g., automobiles, trucks), or area (e.g., residential water heaters) sources. The City is located within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). The district covers the majority of the MDAB. The MDAB is an assemblage of mountain ranges interspersed with long broad valleys that often contain dry lakes. The MDAB is separated from the southern California coastal and central California valley regions by mountains (highest elevation approximately 10,000 feet). The Antelope Valley is bordered in the northwest by the Tehachapi Mountains and in the south by the San Gabriel Mountains. The adjacent Mojave Desert is bordered in the southwest by the San Bernardino Mountains.23 Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG are considered consistent with the MDAQMP growth projections, since the RTP/SCS forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the MDAQMP. According to the Growth Forecast Appendix prepared by SCAG for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City of Adelanto is projected to add a total of 38,900 new residents and 3,900 new employees through the year 2040.24 The proposed project is not in conflict with the growth projections established for the City by SCAG. The project’s construction emissions would be below the thresholds of significance established by the MDAQMD (the project’s daily construction emissions are summarized in Table 3-1). In addition, the proposed project’s long-term (operational) airborne emissions will be below levels that the MDAQMD considers to be a significant impact (refer to Table 3-2). As a result, no impacts will occur.
23 Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Federal Conformity Guidelines. Report dated August 2016.
24 Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2016- 2040.Demographics &Growth Forecast. April 2016.
383
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 31
B. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

According to the MDAQMD, any project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the MDAQMD daily emissions threshold identified previously and noted at the bottom of Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In general, a project will have the potential for a significant air quality impact if any of the following are met:
● Generates total emissions (direct and indirect) that exceeds the MDAQMD thresholds (the proposed project emissions are less than the thresholds as indicated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2); ● Results in a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local background (the proposed project will not result, in any violation of these standards); ● Does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plan(s) (the proposed project is in conformance with the City’s Zoning and General Plan); and, ● 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 (HI) (non-cancerous) greater than or equal to 1 (the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor is the site located near any sensitive receptors).

The proposed project’s construction and operation will not lead to a violation of the above-mentioned criteria. For ROG emissions to remain under the threshold during the architectural coatings phase, coatings must be below a level of 150 VOC g/L.

Table 3-1
Estimated Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.08 36.11 34.54 0.06 7.51 4.22 Daily Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Urban Crossroads
Long-term emissions refer to those air quality impacts that will occur once the proposed project has been constructed and is operational. The analysis of long-term operational impacts summarized in Table 3-2 also used the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 computer model. The analysis summarized in Table 3-2 indicates that the operational (long-term) emissions will be below the MDAQMD daily emissions thresholds.

Table 3-2
Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs./day
Emission Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Total (lbs./day) 70.64 46.29 409.92 0.84 27.27 5.38
Daily Thresholds 137 137 548 137 82 65
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Urban Crossroads
384
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 32
The analysis presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 reflects projected emissions that are typically higher during the summer months and represent a worse-case scenario. As indicated in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, the impacts are considered to be less than significant. In addition, the MDAQMD Rule Book contains numerous regulations governing various activities undertaken within the district. Among these regulations is Rule 403.2 – Fugitive Dust Control which was adopted in 1996 for the purpose of controlling fugitive dust. Adherence to Rule 403.2 regulations is required for all projects undertaken within the district. All internal roadways and parking areas will be paved. Future construction truck drivers must also adhere to Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations, which limits the idling of diesel-powered vehicles to less than five minutes.3 The proposed use of the project involves frequent transportation and storage of gas and diesel fuel. In addition to the proposed mitigation, the project applicant must also adhere to the city’s code of ordinances. Mitigation measures have been incorporated herein to further reduce the potential air quality impacts to levels that are less than significant.

C. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ● Less than Significant Impact.

According to the MDAQMD, residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities are considered sensitive receptor land uses. The following project types proposed for sites within the specified distance to an existing or planned (zoned) sensitive receptor land use must be evaluated: any industrial project within 1,000 feet; a distribution center (40 or more trucks per day) within 1,000 feet; a major transportation project within 1,000 feet; a dry cleaner using perchloroethylene within 500 feet; and a gasoline dispensing facility within 300 feet. The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 400 feet to the northwest. Due to the distance from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptor, the impacts will be less than significant.

D. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ● Less than Significant Impact.

According to the Greenhouse Gas Report conducted by Urban Crossroads, the project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with MDAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors, and emissions that may lead to odors, associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.25

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures have been incorporated herein to further reduce the potential air quality impacts to levels that are less than significant.
25 Urban Crossroads. Adelanto Commercial Greenhouse Gas Analysis. June 07, 2023. 385
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 33
Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 1. The Applicant shall prepare and submit to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project;
Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 2. The Applicant shall ensure that signage, compliant with Rule 403 Attachment, is erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 5. All maintenance and access vehicular roads and parking areas shall be stabilized with chemical, gravel or asphaltic pavement sufficient to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Take actions to prevent project-related track out onto paved surfaces and clean any project-related track out within 24 hours. All other earthen surfaces within the project area shall be stabilized by natural or irrigated vegetation, compaction, chemical or other means. 386
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 34
EXHIBIT 3-2 AIR QUALITY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
387
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 35

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 
B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 
C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
● The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. ● The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
● The proposed project would 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.
388
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 36
● The proposed project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. ● The proposed project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Sensitive biological resources include a variety of plant and animal species that are specialized and endemic to a particular habitat type. Due to loss of habitat, some of these species have been designated by either, or both, the federal and state government resource agencies as threatened or endangered. Species listed as threatened include those whose numbers have dropped to such low levels and/or whose populations are so isolated that the continuation of the species could be jeopardized. Endangered species are those with such limited numbers or subject to such extreme circumstances that they are considered in imminent danger of extinction. Other government agencies and resource organizations also identify sensitive species, those that are naturally rare and that have been locally depleted and put at risk by human activities. While not in imminent danger of jeopardy or extinction, sensitive species are considered vulnerable and can become candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered.

A. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Meandering transects were walked on the site and in surrounding areas (i.e., the zone of influence) where accessible at a pace that allowed for careful documentation of the plant and animal species present on the site. All plants observed were identified in the field and wildlife was identified through visual observations and/or by vocalizations. Habitat assessments were conducted for the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, and Mohave ground squirrel. The site dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), Asian mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Flatspine burr ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).26
The site supports a minimal amount of wildlife, with many of them being birds with indications of coyotes also being present on site. California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus) are also expected to occur on site but were not observed. Birds observed included ravens (Corvus corax), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and the ash throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens). One reptile was observed during the survey, Western Whiptail Lizard (Cnemidophorus tigris). Other reptiles that may occur on the site include common side-blotched lizard 26 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
389
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 37
(Uta stansburiana).
27 Only one mammal was observed on site, the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), although Coyote (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), and Merriam’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami) may also occur on the site given their wide-spread distribution in the region. No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations. The following are the listed and special status species that have the ability to occur on the project site. It is not a comprehensive list of all the species in the quad. This information has been taken from the California Natural Diversity Database and is using the most current version.28
● Desert Tortoise: The site is located within the documented tortoise, a state and federal threatened species, habitat according to CNDDB (2021). The property supports very marginal habitat for the desert tortoise based on the location of the site in a semi-developed area of Adelanto. No tortoises were observed anywhere within the property boundaries during the November 22, 2021, surveys.

The species is not expected to move onto the site in the near future based on the absence of any sign, absence of any recent observations in the immediate area. The protocol survey results are valid for one year as per CDFW and USFWS requirements.
● Mohave Ground Squirrel: The Mohave ground squirrel is a California state threatened species that have a short, flat, furred, white, underside tail, uniformly brown (with no spots or stripes). They inhabit open desert scrub, alkali desert scrub, and annual grasslands on sandy to gravelly surfaces in the Mojave Desert. Occupiable burrows were found on the site, but no Mohave ground squirrels were detected. It is the opinion of RCA Associates, Inc. that the habitat is not prime Mohave ground squirrel habitat and is very unlikely to support populations of the species based on the following criteria, that there have been two recent sightings, within 20 years of the species in the Adelanto quadrangle.
● Swainson’s Hawk: The site is located within documented Swainson’s hawk habitat, a state threatened raptor, according to CNDDB (2021). No hawks were seen on the property during the survey, and no suitable habitat was observed due to previous grading of the site. Swainson’s hawks occupy grasslands and breed in trees that are the only ones seen for miles. Swainson’s hawks are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of habitat and prime vegetation. ● Burrowing Owl: The site is located within documented burrowing owl habitat according to CNDDB (2021). No owls were seen on the property during the survey, and minimal suitable habitat was observed. Burrowing owls are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of suitable vegetation and burrows.
● Le Conte’s thrasher: Le Conte’s thrashers have not been recently observed in the area according to CNDDB (2021). Thrashers are not expected to occur on the site due to lack of critical vegetation used by the species, such as saltbush and catclaw acacia. Thrashers may be very infrequent in the area given the low population levels in the region as well as the lack of any recent sightings according to the CNDDB.

Future development of the site will have minimal impact on the general biological resources present on 27 Ibid.
28 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
390
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 38
the site, and most, if not all, of the vegetation will likely be removed during future construction activities.

Wildlife will also be impacted by development activities and those species with limited mobility (i.e., small mammals and reptiles) will experience increases in mortality during the construction phase. However, more mobile species (i.e., birds, large mammals) will be displaced into adjacent areas and will likely experience minimal impacts. Therefore, loss of about 11.81 acres of desert vegetation is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on the overall biological resources in the region given the presence of similar habitat throughout the surrounding desert region. No sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.29 No federal or State-listed wildlife species were observed on the site during the field investigations including the Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise. In addition, there are no documented observations of these species either on the site or in the immediate area. The site is not expected to support populations of the desert tortoise based on the absence of suitable habitat. As per CDFW protocol, the burrowing owl survey results are valid for only 30 days; therefore, CDFW may require a 30-day pre-construction survey be performed prior to any clearing/grading activities to determine if owls have moved on to the site since the survey.30
Future development activities are expected to grade the property and remove the vegetation from the 11.81 acres parcel; however, cumulative impacts to the general biological resources (plants and animals) in the surrounding area are expected to be negligible. This assumption is based on the habitat containing scarce vegetation of non-native species. In addition, future development activities are not expected to have any impact on any State or Federal listed or State special status plant or animal species. As discussed above, the site does not support any desert tortoises. In addition, burrowing owls do not inhabit the site and are not expected to be impacted given the absence of any suitable burrows. The following mitigation measures are recommended:
● If construction occurs during the non-nesting season (typically September 16 through December 31), a pre-construction sweep shall be performed to verify absence of nesting birds. A qualified biologist shall conduct the pre-activity sweep within the project areas (including access routes) and a 300-foot buffer surrounding the project areas, within 2 hours prior to initiating project activities.

If project activities are planned during bird nesting season (generally, raptor nesting season is January 1 through September 15; and passerine bird nesting season is February 1 through September 1, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist around each nest. The buffer shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is needed for this measure.
● Prior to grading or any other ground-disturbing activity, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey must be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, May 7, 2012, by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the beginning of project activities. A secondary 29 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
30 Ibid.
391
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 39
survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist within 24 hours prior to the beginning of project construction to determine if the project site contains burrowing owl or sign thereof to avoid any potential impacts to the species. The surveys shall include 100 percent coverage of the project site.

If both surveys reveal no burrowing owls are present or sign thereof, no additional actions related to this measure are required and a letter shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the survey. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW prior to construction. If occupied active burrows or sign thereof are found within the development footprint during the preconstruction clearance survey, Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 3 shall also apply. ● If active burrows or signs thereof are found within the development footprint during the preconstruction clearance surveys, site-specific non-disturbance buffer zones shall be established by the qualified biologist shall be no less than 300 feet If determined appropriate, a smaller buffer may be established by the qualified biologist following monitoring and assessments of the Project’s effects on the burrowing owls. If it is not possible to avoid active burrows, passive relocation shall be implemented if a qualified biologist has determined there are no nesting owls and/or juvenile owls are no longer dependent on the burrows. A qualified biologist, in coordination with the applicant and the City, shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for CDFW review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities onsite and proposed mitigation for permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. When a qualified biologist determines that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the Project Site and passive relocation is complete, construction activities may begin. A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation.

The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.
● Pre-construction surveys following the Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (CDFG 2010) or most recent version shall be performed by a qualified biologist authorized by a Memorandum of Understanding issued by CDFW. The pre-construction surveys shall cover the Project Area and a 50-foot buffer zone. Should Mohave ground squirrel presence be confirmed during the survey, the Project Proponent should obtain an ITP for Mohave ground squirrel prior to the start of Project activities. CDFW shall be notified if Mohave ground squirrel presence is confirmed during the preconstruction survey. If a Mohave ground squirrel is observed during Project activities, and the Project Proponent does not have an ITP, all work shall immediately stop, and the observation shall be immediately reported to CDFW.
● A CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a protocol level presence or absence survey within the project area and 50-foot buffer no more than 48 hours prior to Project activities during desert tortoise active season (April to May or September to October), in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019 desert tortoise survey methodology. The survey shall utilize perpendicular survey routes and 100-percent visual coverage for desert tortoise and their sign. Results of the survey shall be submitted to CDFW. If the survey confirms absence, the CDFW-approved biologist shall ensure desert tortoise do not enter the project area. If the survey confirms presence, the project proponent shall submit to CDFW for review and approval a desert tortoise-specific avoidance plan detailing the protective avoidance measures to be implemented to ensure complete avoidance of take to desert tortoise. If complete avoidance cannot be achieved, CDFW recommends the project proponent not undertake project activities and project activities be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained. ● Prior to project implementation, and during the appropriate season, the City shall conduct botanical field survey following protocols set forth in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating 392
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 40
Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The surveys shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved botanist(s) experienced in conducting floristic botanical field surveys, knowledgeable of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification, familiar with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant plants, and familiar with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting. The botanical field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants will both be evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and, in a manner, which maximizes the likelihood of locating special status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. Botanical field surveys shall be conducted floristic in nature, meaning that every plant taxon that occurs in the project area is identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. If any rare plants or sensitive vegetation communities are identified, the City shall either avoid the occurrence, with an appropriate buffer, or mitigate the loss of the occurrence through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW-approved bank or land acquisition and conservation at a minimum 3:1 (replacement-to-impact) ratio. Note that a higher ratio may be warranted if the proposed mitigation lands are located far away from the Project site (i.e., within a separate watershed) or is not occupied by or available to special status species. If the Project has the potential to impact a State-listed species, the City should apply for a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
● Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant should obtain written correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) stating that notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is not required for the project, or the project applicant should obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the project. ● Pre-construction surveys shall encompass all areas within the potential footprint of disturbance for the project, as well as a reasonable buffer around these areas.31 The above mitigation will reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant.

B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ● No Impact.

According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the results of the Biological Report, there are no wetland or migratory bird nesting areas located within the project site.32 In addition, there is no riparian habitat located on-site or in the surrounding areas.18 No offsite wetland or migratory bird nesting areas will be affected by the proposed development since all development will be confined to the project site. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. 31 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
32 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 393
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 41
According to the biological study, no wetland areas or riparian habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations.33 However, a potential jurisdictional channel was observed where a blue line channel crosses the northern boundary of the project site and runs southeast exiting the site at the eastern border.34 A comprehensive jurisdictional delineation may be required at a future date due to a possible downstream connection or nexus with a wash or drainage to determine if the channel meets the criteria as Waters of the State (WoS) and/or Waters of the U.S. (WoUS). As a result, the impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

D. Would the project 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? ● No Impact.

The site’s utility as a habitat and a migration corridor is constrained by the presence of adjacent roadways and the development that is present in the neighboring areas. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

In Appendix C, Protected Plant Preservation Plan was also conducted by RCA Associates, Inc to evaluate present Joshua Trees and determine the suitability for relocation or disposal. There are 7 Joshua trees located on the property and 1 of the trees are suitable for relocation/transplanting. This conclusion was based on: (1) trees which were one foot or greater in height and less than twelve feet tall (approximate); (2) in good health; (3), two branches or less; (4) density of trees (i.e., no clonal trees); (5) no exposed roots; (6) and trees that are not leaning over excessively.35
Joshua Trees are protected under Chapter 17.57 – Biotic Resources of the City of Adelanto’s Municipal Code.

In addition, the City of Adelanto enforces Title 8, Division 9 of San Bernardino County Code, which requires that every Joshua Tree proposed for removal be inspected by the city to assure the Joshua tree is not a “specimen” class tree requiring preservation and transplantation. Joshua trees occur throughout the Mojave Desert in Southern California and are typically found at an elevation of 1,200 to 5,400 feet. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife consider Joshua tree woodlands as areas that support relatively high species diversity and as such are considered to be a sensitive desert community. Joshua trees are also considered a significant resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are included in the Desert Plant Protection Act, Food, and Agricultural Code (80001 – 80006). As of September 22, 2020, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife temporarily listed the western Joshua Tree (Yucca brevifolia) as an endangered species for one year until a final decision is made in 2022. Therefore, any attempt to remove a Joshua tree or part of a Joshua tree, dead or alive from its current position will require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). As a result, the proposed project will be required to implement the following mitigation measure:

1. The Joshua trees will be retained in place or replanted somewhere on the site where they can remain in perpetuity or will be transplanted to an off-site area approved by the city where they can remain 33 RCA Associates, Inc. General Biological Resources Assessment, Adelanto, California. APN 0459-053-08, 55, 56, 57 & 58. June 24, 2022.
34 Ibid.
35 RCA Associates, Inc. Protected Plant Preservation Plan. Report dated May 24, 2022. 394
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 42
in perpetuity. Joshua trees which are deemed not suitable for transplanting will be cut-up and discarded as per City requirements.

The above mitigation will reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant.

F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ● No Impact.

The proposed project’s implementation would not be in conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of biological impacts determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project’s impacts to levels that would be less than significant.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1. Regardless of the time of year, a pre-construction survey shall be performed to verify absence of nesting birds. A qualified biologist shall conduct the preactivity survey within the Project areas (including access routes) and a 500-foot buffer surrounding the Project areas, no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests. Preconstruction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified biologist shall make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist to be marked on the ground around each nest. The buffer shall be a minimum of 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Active nest(s) and an established buffer distance(s) shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is needed for this measure.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. Prior to grading or any other ground-disturbing 395
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 43
activity, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey must be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, May 7, 2012, by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the beginning of project activities. A secondary survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist within 24 hours prior to the beginning of project construction to determine if the project site contains burrowing owl or sign thereof to avoid any potential impacts to the species. The surveys shall include 100 percent coverage of the project site. If both surveys reveal no burrowing owls are present or sign thereof, no additional actions related to this measure are required and a letter shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the survey. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW prior to construction. If occupied active burrows or sign thereof are found within the development footprint during the preconstruction clearance survey, Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 3 shall also apply.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. If active burrows or signs thereof are found within the development footprint during the pre-construction clearance surveys, site-specific non-disturbance buffer zones shall be established by the qualified biologist shall be no less than 300 feet If determined appropriate, a smaller buffer may be established by the qualified biologist following monitoring and assessments of the project’s effects on the burrowing owls. If it is not possible to avoid active burrows, passive relocation shall be implemented if a qualified biologist has determined there are no nesting owls and/or juvenile owls are no longer dependent on the burrows. A qualified biologist, in coordination with the applicant and the City, shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for CDFW review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities onsite and proposed mitigation for permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

When a qualified biologist determines that burrowing owls are no longer occupying the Project Site and passive relocation is complete, construction activities may begin. A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.

DFW has concerns that the Project is within the range of the CESA threatened Mohave ground squirrel (MGS), and the ISMND confirms the presence of burrows suitable for the species. However, the ISMND does not anticipate the presence of Mohave ground squirrel due to urbanization. Because CDFW is aware of an occurrence of Mohave ground squirrel burrow in the vicinity of the Project, CDFW is concerned that surveys were not performed to confirm presence. Therefore, CDFW recognizes the potential for Mohave ground squirrel at the start of construction and recommends pre-construction Mohave ground squirrel surveys and observations and requests the City adopt the following mitigation measures:

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. Pre-construction surveys following the Mohave Ground Squirrel Survey Guidelines (CDFG 2010) or most recent version shall be performed by a qualified biologist authorized by a Memorandum of Understanding issued by CDFW. The preconstruction surveys shall cover the Project Area and a 50-foot buffer zone. Should Mohave ground squirrel presence be confirmed during the survey, the Project Proponent should obtain an ITP for Mohave ground squirrel prior to the start of Project activities. CDFW shall be notified if Mohave ground squirrel presence is confirmed during the pre-construction survey. If a Mohave ground squirrel is observed during Project activities, and the Project Proponent does not have an ITP, all work shall immediately stop, and the observation shall be immediately reported to CDFW.

Desert Tortoise is a state-threatened, proposed endangered species, as such CDFW is concerned that the ISMND lacks a mitigation measure for pre-construction desert tortoise surveys, because the Project site is within the desert tortoise range and contains suitable habitat for desert tortoise: creosote bush scrub. To 396
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 44
address potential direct/indirect impacts to desert tortoise, CDFW recommends the inclusion of the following mitigation measure prior to the City adopting the ISMND:

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 6. Prior to project implementation, and during the appropriate season, the City shall conduct botanical field survey following protocols set forth in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The surveys shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved botanist(s) experienced in conducting floristic botanical field surveys, knowledgeable of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification, familiar with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant plants, and familiar with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting. The botanical field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants will both be evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and, in a manner, which maximizes the likelihood of locating special status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. Botanical field surveys shall be conducted floristic in nature, meaning that every plant taxon that occurs in the project area is identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. If any rare plants or sensitive vegetation communities are identified, the City shall either avoid the occurrence, with an appropriate buffer, or mitigate the loss of the occurrence through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW-approved bank or land acquisition and conservation at a minimum 3:1 (replacement-to-impact) ratio. Note that a higher ratio may be warranted if the proposed mitigation lands are located far away from the Project site (i.e., within a separate watershed) or is not occupied by or available to special status species. If the Project has the potential to impact a State-listed species, the City should apply for a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 7. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the Project applicant should obtain written correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) stating that notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is not required for the Project, or the Project applicant should obtain a CDFW-executed Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, authorizing impacts to Fish and Game Code section 1602 resources associated with the Project.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 8. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Adelanto shall develop a plan with measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of pesticides used in cannabis cultivation, including fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. The plan should include, but is not limited to, the following elements: (1) Proper use, 397
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 45
storage, and disposal of pesticides, in accordance with manufacturers’ directions and warnings. (2) Avoidance of pesticide use where toxic runoff may pass into waters of the State, including ephemeral streams. (3) Avoidance of pesticides that cannot legally be used on cannabis in the state of California, as set forth by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. (4) Avoidance of anticoagulant rodenticides and rodenticides with “flavorizers.” (5) Avoidance of sticky/glue traps. (6) Inclusion of alternatives to toxic rodenticides, such as sanitation (removing food sources like pet food, cleaning up refuse, and securing garbage in sealed containers) and physical barriers.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 9. Project construction shall not occur during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. To suppress Project noise, the Project shall implement the use of mufflers and all generators shall be enclosed.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 10. The following mitigation measures are applicable to the Joshua Trees that are present on the project site.

1. The Joshua trees will be retained in place or replanted somewhere on the site where they can remain in perpetuity or will be transplanted to an off-site area approved by the city where they can remain in perpetuity. Joshua trees which are deemed not suitable for transplanting will be cut-up and discarded as per City requirements.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 11. A comprehensive jurisdictional delineation may be required at a future date due to a possible downstream connection or nexus with a more significant body of water in order to determine if the channel meets the criteria as Waters of the State (WoS) and/or Waters of the U.S. (WoUS).
398
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 46

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?  B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?  C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
● The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
● The proposed project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be historically significant if it is locally protected through a General Plan or historic preservation ordinance.

In addition, a site or structure may be historically significant according to State or Federal criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. To be considered eligible for the National Register, a property’s significance may be determined if the property is associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past, with the lives of people who were important in the past, or represents significant architectural, landscape, or engineering elements. Specific criteria include the following:
● Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past;
● Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or,
● Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
399
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 47
Ordinarily, properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
● A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
● Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; ● A building or structure removed from its original location that is significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure is associated with a historic person or event; ● A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; ● A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; ● A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
● A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or,
● A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.36

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ● No Impact.

The State has established California Historical Landmarks that include sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. California Points of Historical Interest has a similar definition, except they are deemed of local significance. A cultural report conducted by BCR Consulting LLC, attached as an Appendix, found that artifacts with significant value were not found on the project site and its vicinity. A search was also done of the National Register of Historic Places and the list of California Historical Resources was conducted, and it was determined that no historic resources were listed within the City of Adelanto.
37 The proposed project will not affect any structures or historical resources listed on the National or State Register or those identified as being eligible for listing on the National or State Register. The project site is not present on the list of historic resources identified by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO).38 The proposed project will be limited to the project site and will not affect any structures or historical resources listed on the National or State Register or those identified as being eligible for listing on the National or State Register. Furthermore, the project site is not present on the list of historic resources 36 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov. 2010. 37 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. Secondary Source: California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. Listed California Historical Resources. Website accessed August 20, 2022. 38 California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Historical Resources. Website accessed on October 28, 2022. 400
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 48
identified by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO).22 The project site is vacant and relatively undisturbed with the exception of vehicular activity occurring over the site, though the developments in surrounding areas do not have any historical or cultural significance. The project’s implementation will not impact any Federal, State, or locally designated historic resources. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

No signs of human habitation nor any cemeteries are apparent within or near the project, and no signs of development on the parcel appear on any historic aerial map reviewed, nor on later USGS maps. Since it is possible that previously unrecognized resources could exist at the site, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Adherence to mitigation, the impact will be less than significant.

C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

There are no dedicated cemeteries located within or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project will be restricted to the project site and therefore will not affect any dedicated cemeteries in the vicinity. Notwithstanding, the following mitigation is mandated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(b)(4):
“A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.”
Additionally, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code states:
“In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with (b) Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.”
Adherence to the aforementioned standard condition will ensure potential impacts remain at levels that are less than significant.
401
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 49

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will be required to address potential cultural resources impacts:

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Adelanto that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments at or below four (4) feet below ground surface and shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified archaeologist/paleontologist personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino, California, is required for significant discoveries. The archaeologist/paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Adelanto prior to building finalization.
402
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 50

3.6 ENERGY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

B. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on energy resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the proposed project’s construction or operation.
● The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Energy and natural gas consumption were estimated using default energy intensities by building type in CalEEMod. In addition, it was assumed the new buildings would be constructed pursuant to the 2022 CALGreen standards, which was considered in the CalEEMod inputs.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development in the City of Adelanto. The proposed project would total five individual parcels (subdivided from the current four parcels) totaling 11.81 acres. The proposed project would total five individual parcels (subdivided from the current four parcels) totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 956 square foot upper-level office with 44 parking spaces. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would 403
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 51
be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces.39 Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project site. Currently, the existing site is vacant and does not use electricity. Therefore, the proposed project would cause a permanent increase in demand for electricity when compared to existing conditions. The increased demand is expected to be sufficiently served by the existing SCE electrical facilities. According to the worksheets provided in Appendix B, the proposed project is anticipated to consume 7,089 KWH on a daily basis. The proposed project is located within the service area of the Southwest Gas Company. The project site is currently vacant and has no demand for natural gas. Therefore, the development of the proposed project will create a permanent increase in the demand for natural gas. According to the worksheets provided in Appendix B, the proposed project is anticipated to consume 417 cubic feet of natural gas on a daily basis.

The proposed project would represent an insignificant percentage of the overall demand in the region. The proposed project would be constructed pursuant to the 2022 energy conservation standards of Title 24; therefore, no significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. The proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ● Less Than Significant Impact.

On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code (Code) which became effective on January 1, 2011. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) became effective to aid efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. Title 24 now requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant‐emitting finish materials. The proposed project as well as any future development within the remainder of the project site will be required to conform to all pertinent energy conservation requirements. While the proposed project is a privately owned commercial use, the implementation of similar programs would prove effective in reducing potential energy consumption. The proposed project will be required to comply with all pertinent Title 24 requirements along with other Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to energy indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
39 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 404
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 52

3.7 GEOLOGY & SOILS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project directly or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death?

i). Would the project, directly or indirectly, cause rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. 
ii). Would the project, directly or indirectly cause strong seismic ground shaking? 
iii). Would the project, directly or indirectly cause seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction.  iv). Would the project, directly or indirectly cause landslides?  B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 
C. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 
E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

F. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on geology and soils if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would, directly or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42); strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and, landslides?
● The proposed project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 405
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 53
● The proposed project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
● The proposed project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. ● The proposed project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
● The proposed project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

The proposed project’s potential seismic and soils risk was evaluated in terms of the site’s proximity to earthquake faults and unstable soils.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project, directly or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Surface ruptures are visible instances of horizontal or vertical displacement, or a combination of the two.

The amount of ground shaking depends on the intensity of the earthquake, the duration of shaking, soil conditions, type of building, and distance from the epicenter or fault. The potential impacts from fault rupture and ground shaking are considered no greater for the project site than for the surrounding areas given the distance between the site and the fault trace. Other potential seismic issues include ground failure and liquefaction. Ground failure is the loss in stability of the ground and includes landslides, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. As a result, the potential impacts are less than significant. i). Would the project, directly or indirectly, cause rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ● No Impact
The City of Adelanto is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the Southern California region could affect the proposed project site. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The closest fault to the project site is the Mirage Valley Fault, from the Late Quaternary period, which is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the City.
40 As a result, no impacts will occur.
ii). Would the project, directly or indirectly, cause strong seismic ground shaking? ●Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development on an 11.81 acres vacant parcel located on the southeastern corner of US-395 and Auburn 40California Department of Conservation. Fault
406
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 54
Avenue. Three underground storage tanks (USTs) would be installed. Installation of the USTs include earth moving activities during construction that will produce insignificant ground shaking. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
iii). Would the project, directly or indirectly, cause seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ● No Impact.

According to the United States Geological Survey, liquefaction is the process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid. The risk for liquefaction is no greater on-site than it is for the region. The project site or the city of Adelanto is not located within a liquefaction zone. 41 As a
result, no impacts will occur.
iv). Would the project, directly or indirectly cause landslides? ● No Impact.

According to the United States Geological Survey, a landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. The project site is level with little to no slopes in the surrounding area except for an unrecognized drain passage 200 feet to the west of the project site that would provide no significant movement of debris. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The University of California, Davis SoilWeb database was consulted to determine the nature of the soils that underlie the project site. According to the University of California, Davis SoilWeb database, the property is underlain by Bryman, Helendale, and Cajon soils associations consisting of loamy fine sand with 2 to 5 percent slopes.42 The proposed project’s contractors will be required to adhere to specific requirements that govern wind and water erosion during site preparation and construction activities. Following development, the project site would be paved over and landscaped, which would minimize soil erosion. The project’s construction will not result in soil erosion with adherence to those development requirements that restrict storm water runoff (and the resulting erosion) and require soil stabilization. In addition, stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres, or smaller sites disturbing less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale, are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program.

Prior to initiating construction, contractors must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit, which is administered by the State. In order to obtain an NPDES permit, the project Applicant must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The County has identified sample construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be included in the mandatory SWPPP. The use of these construction BMPs identified in the mandatory SWPPP will prevent soil erosion and the discharge of sediment into the local storm drains during the project’s construction phase. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
41 San Bernardino County. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan - July 13, 2017. 42 UC Davis. SoilWeb. Website accessed October 27, 2022. 407
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 55
C. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project’s construction will not result in soil erosion since the project’s contractors must implement the construction BMPs identified in the mandatory SWPPP. The BMPs will minimize soil erosion and the discharge of sediment off-site. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area that could be subject to landslides or liquefaction.28 The soils that underlie the project site possess a low potential for shrinking and swelling. Soils that exhibit certain shrink swell characteristics become sticky when wet and expand according to the moisture content present at the time. Since the soils have a low shrink-swell potential, lateral spreading resulting from an influx of groundwater is slim. The likelihood of lateral spreading will be further reduced since the project’s implementation will not require grading and excavation that would extend to depths required to encounter groundwater. Moreover, the project will not result in the direct extraction of groundwater. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The University of California, Davis SoilWeb database was consulted to determine the nature of the soils that underlie the project site. According to the University of California, Davis SoilWeb database, the property is underlain by soils of various associations including Bryman, Cajon, Helendale, and Mohave variant soils associations.
43 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these soils are acceptable for the development of commercial buildings.44 As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

E. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ● No Impact.

The proposed project would utilize existing sewer connections located along Auburn Avenue. No septic tanks will be used as part of the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no impacts will occur.

F. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ● Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation The proposed project site is located on an 11.81 acre project site that is currently vacant and undeveloped.

The surface deposits in the proposed project area are composed entirely of younger Quaternary Alluvium.

This younger Quaternary Alluvium is unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. The closest fossil vertebrate locality is LACM7786, between Adelanto and the former George Air Force Base. This locality produced a fossil specimen of meadow vole, Microtus. The following mitigation will be applicable during earth-disturbing activities as a means to protect potential paleontological resources:
● Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of 28 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Riverside California – Palm Spring Area.

Report dated 1978.
43 UC Davis. SoilWeb. Website accessed October 27, 2022. 44 United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Website accessed August 22, 2022. 408
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 56
Adelanto that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed. ● The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments at or below four (4) feet below ground surface and shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified archaeologist/paleontologist personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources. ● Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino, California, is required for significant discoveries. The archaeologist/paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.
● A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Museum prior to building final.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will be required to address potential paleontological resources impacts:

Paleontological Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Adelanto that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

Paleontological Mitigation Measure No. 2. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments at or below four (4) feet below ground surface and shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified archaeologist/paleontologist personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources.

Paleontological Mitigation Measure No. 3. Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino, California, is required for significant discoveries. The archaeologist/paleontologist must have a written repository 409
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 57
agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Paleontological Mitigation Measure No. 4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Museum prior to building finalization. 410
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 58
EXHIBIT 3-3 GEOLOGY MAP
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
411
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 59

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
● The proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The proposed project site is located on a 11.8-acre (517,290 square feet) parcel that is currently vacant and undisturbed. The proposed development will be constructed in the northeast portion of the City of Adelanto.

Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without these natural GHG, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler. However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion have elevated the concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere to above natural levels. These man-made GHG will have the effect of warming atmospheric temperatures with the attendant impacts of changes in the global climate, increased sea levels, and changes to the worldwide biome. The major GHG that influence global warming are described below. ● Water Vapor. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG present in the atmosphere. While water vapor is not considered a pollutant, while it remains in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of water vapor is directly related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to “hold” more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. When water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation. This will allow less energy to reach the Earth’s surface thereby affecting surface temperatures.
412
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 60
● Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. Manmade sources of CO2 include the burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid‐1700’s, these activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010. ● Methane (CH4). CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other human-related sources of methane production include fossil‐fuel combustion and biomass burning. ● Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Concentrations of N2O also began to increase at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel‐fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant.
● Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928. It was used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
● Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC). HFCs are synthetic man‐made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC‐23 (CHF3), HFC‐134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC‐152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were HFC‐23. HFC‐134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC‐23 and HFC‐134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each.

Concentrations of HFC‐152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade and used for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
● Perfluorocarbons (PFC). PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High‐energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and 413
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 61
hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. ● Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2.

Concentrations in the 1990s where about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

The MDAQMD mass emissions threshold is 100,000 tons (90,720 metric tons (MT)) CO2e per year.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ● Less than Significant Impact.

A Greenhouse Gas Report was conducted by Urban Crossroads, attached as Appendix E, indicated in Table 3-3, the operational CO2E to be 12,311.10 MTCO2E per year which is below the threshold. This figure does not take into account the implementation of low impact development (LID) requirements (drought tolerant landscaping, water efficient appliances, and energy efficient appliances) and compliance to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements. As a result, the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Table 3-3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Source
GHG Emissions (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E
Annual construction-related
emissions amortized over 30 years 7.19 2.83E-04 1.70E-03 7.23 Mobile Source 11,268.52 0.56 0.59 11,478.31
Area Source 1.76 0.00 0.00 1.77
Energy Source 621.94 0.06 0.01 624.99
Water 22.77 0.60 0.01 42.21
Waste 30.46 304 0.00 106.58
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 70.00 70.00
Total CO2E (All Sources) 12,331.10 CO2E
Significance Threshold 100,000 MTCO2E
Source: Urban Crossroads
B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) authorized the preparation of a county-wide Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. This plan was completed and finalized in March 0f 2014. The plan contains multiple reduction measures that would be effective in reducing GHG emissions throughout the SBCTA region. The lack of development in the immediate area may preclude residents from obtaining employment or commercial services within City boundaries, thus compelling residents to travel outside of 414
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 62
City boundaries for employment and commercial services. It is important to note that the California Department of Transportation as well as the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino are engaged in an effort to construct a multi-modal transportation corridor consisting of public transit, a new freeway, and bicycle lanes known as the High Desert Corridor (HDC).

The San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) authorized the preparation of a county-wide Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. This plan was adopted in March 2021. The plan contains multiple reduction measures that would be effective in reducing GHG emissions throughout the SBCTA region. The lack of development in the immediate area may preclude residents from obtaining employment or commercial services within City boundaries, thus compelling residents to travel outside of City boundaries for employment and commercial services. It is important to note that the California Department of Transportation as well as the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino are engaged in an effort to construct a multi-modal transportation corridor consisting of public transit, a new freeway, and bicycle lanes known as the High Desert Corridor (HDC). The aforementioned regional program will reduce potential GHG emissions related to excessive VMTs to levels that are less than significant.

Those Partnership jurisdictions, including Adelanto, choosing to complete and adopt local CAPs that are consistent with the County’s GHG Reduction Plan and with the prior Regional Plan Program EIR and the addendum or supplemental CEQA document prepared by SBCOG will be able to tier their future projectlevel CEQA analyses of GHG emissions from their CAP. This can help to streamline project-level CEQA review. The City of Adelanto selected a goal to reduce its community GHG emissions to a level that is 40% below its 2020 GHG emissions level by 2030. The City will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost effective through a combination of state (~60%) and local (~40%) efforts. The Pavley vehicle standards, the state’s LCFS, the RPS, and other state measures will reduce GHG emissions in Adelanto’s on-road, off-road, and building energy sectors in 2030. An additional reduction of 59,812 MTCO2e will be achieved primarily through the following local measures, in order of reductions achieved: GHG Performance Standard for New Development (PS-1); solar installation for existing commercial/industrial facilities (Energy-8); and waste diversion and reduction (Waste-2).45 Adelanto’s reduction plan has the greatest effect on GHG emissions in the building energy, waste, and onroad transportation. The City of Adelanto adopted the North Adelanto Sustainable Community Plan which is a City planning framework that contains many transportation and land use-related actions to reduce vehicle-related GHG emissions throughout the region. This community plan supports the goals of SB 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (On Road-STATE-SCS) through a wide range of actions which include the following.
● Integrate state, regional, and local sustainable community/smart growth principles into the development and entitlement process.
● Develop a system of trails and corridors that facilitates and encourages bicycling and walking. ● Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary.
● Require the future development of community-wide servicing facilities to be sites in transit-ready areas that can be served and made accessible by public transit. 45 San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (SBCRGGRP). March 2021. 415
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 63
● Provide development-related incentives for projects that promote transit use. ● Designate and maintain a network of City truck routes that provide for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise sensitive land uses. ● Transition the City fleet to low emission/fuel-efficient vehicles as they are retired from service.  Encourage carpooling.
● Work with the regional transit provider to provide shade, weather protection, seating, and lighting at all stops.

Key general plan policies that support the City of Adelanto’s GHG reduction measures or would contribute to GHG reductions and sustainable practices in the City are listed below:
● Policy NR 1.4: All new developments will be required to implement energy conservation techniques into the development design.
● Policy NR 1.6: Conservation techniques shall be required for proposed development (both domestic and industrial) to minimize consumption levels of renewable and non-renewable natural resources including water resources.
● Policy NR 1.1: The City shall promote the development and use of alternative energy sources, such as passive solar in industrial, commercial, and residential developments. ● Policy NR 1.1: The City shall promote the development and use of alternative energy sources, such as passive solar in industrial, commercial, and residential developments. ● Policy NR 1.6: Conservation techniques shall be required for proposed development (both domestic and industrial) to minimize consumption levels of renewable and non-renewable natural resources including water resources.
● Policy AQ 1.1: The City shall continue to work with the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District and any other agencies in order to enforce and implement regional air quality plans. ● Policy WQ 1.1: The City will require that development be designed and constructed to conserve water utilizing low flow irrigation and plumbing fixtures and facilities. ● Policy WQ 1.5: The City will require that all new development utilize water conservation techniques to conserve water resources, such as the use of low-flow irrigation and plumbing systems in new and existing development.

The proposed project will not involve or require any variance from an adopted plan, policy, or regulation governing GHG emissions. As a result, no potential conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas policy plan, policy, or regulation will occur and the potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation will be required.
416
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 64

3.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 
D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

F. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

G. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. ● The proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
● The proposed project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. ● The proposed project would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
● The proposed project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or 417
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 65
working in the project area located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. ● The proposed project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
● The proposed project would expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment.

Hazardous materials are used in a wide variety of products (household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products).

Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials can occur from a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The project’s construction would require the use of diesel fuel to power the construction equipment. The diesel fuel would be properly sealed in tanks and would be transported to the site by truck. Other hazardous materials that would be used on-site during the project’s construction phase include, but are not limited to, gasoline, solvents, architectural coatings, and equipment lubricants. These products are strictly controlled and regulated and in the event of any spill, cleanup activities would be required to adhere to all pertinent protocols pertaining to Adelanto Municipal code 10.30.200. 46 The Applicant will be required to prepare a
safety and hazard mitigation plan (SHMP) that indicates those protocols that must be adhered to in the event of an accident. The SHMP would first identify the initial steps that can be performed to establish a safety and health program within the proposed facility. The SHMP would consist of the following elements:
● The SHMP would outline the hazards for the facility by category (biological, chemical, and physical). ● For each hazard, a general description is given followed by information on the job role that might be specifically affected by the hazard, considerations for a hazard assessment, best practices for eliminating or managing the hazard, Federal, state, or local regulations that may apply to that hazard, and additional resources to assist in hazard recognition and management. ● A detailed outline of safety and health programs that should be implemented within the facility and provides examples and tools to help develop these programs.

The SHMP will be reviewed and approved by the County of San Bernardino Fire Department prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. The proposed use of the project site will also require frequent transportation of gas and diesel to be stored into the two UST tanks which will also be strictly controlled 46 Municode. Adelanto, CA. Chapter 10.30.200- Construction Projects. Website Accessed October 27,2022. 418
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 66
and regulated in accordance with Adelanto Municipal Code 10.30.170 to reduce pollutant urban runoff. 47 The impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project’s construction would require the use of diesel fuel to power the construction equipment. The diesel fuel would be properly sealed in tanks and would be transported to the site by truck. Other hazardous materials that would be used on-site during the project’s construction phase include, but are not limited to, gasoline, solvents, architectural coatings, and equipment lubricants. There will also be frequent incoming transportation of gas and diesel fuel to be stored in the two USTS on the project site. These products are strictly controlled and regulated and in the event of any spill, cleanup activities would be required to adhere to all pertinent protocols pertaining to the city’s code of ordinance as mentioned in subsection A. The Applicant will be required to prepare a safety and hazard mitigation plan that indicates those protocols that must be adhered to in the event of an accident. This plan will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. As a result, the likelihood of encountering contamination or other environmental concerns is remote. The impacts will be less than significant.

C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The nearest school to the project site is Westside Park Elementary School located approximately 0.70 miles to the southwest. Due to the nature of the proposed project, no direct enrollment impacts regarding school services will occur. The proposed project will not directly increase demand for school services. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ● No Impact.

Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the State and other local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements that require the provision of information regarding the location of hazardous materials release sites. A search was conducted through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor website to identify whether the project site is listed in the database as a Cortese site. The project site is not identified as a Cortese site.48 As a result, no impacts will occur. 47 Municode. Adelanto, CA. Chapter 10.30.170-Reduction of pollutants in urban runoff. Website Accessed October 27,2022. 48 CalEPA. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.
419
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 67
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ● Less than Significant Impacts.

The project site is located 1.2 miles west of the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA).49 The proposed project site is located outside of the designated Runway Protection Zone of Runway 17-35 (refer to Exhibit 2D of the Airport Land Use Plan [ALUP]). The project site is located well outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour area (refer to Exhibit 2H). The project site is located within a designated Compatibility Review Area 3 (refer to Exhibit 3B). For this project the proposed use is normally acceptable though it may be subject to restrictions for purposes of public safety.
50 The Applicant has provides evidence to the City of
Adelanto that consultation has been made with the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) regarding the proposed project to ascertain whether there are any restrictions required regarding the proposed project/use with respect to its conformity with the Designated Compatibility Review Area 3. The impacts will be less than significant.

F. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ● No Impact.

At no time will any adjacent street be completely closed to traffic during the proposed project’s construction. In addition, all construction staging must occur on-site. As a result, no impacts are associated with the proposed project’s implementation.

G. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? ● No Impact.

The project site is not located within a “moderate fire hazard severity zone” and Local Responsibility Area (LRA).51 As a result, no impacts will result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that no mitigation would be required 49 Toll-Free Airline. San Bernardino County Public and Private Airports, California. 50 Coffman Associates, Inc. Southern California Logistics Airport. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. September 2008 51 CalFire. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for SW San Bernardino County. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_bernardino_sw/ 420
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 68

3.10 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

B. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner or,

i). Would the project result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site;  ii). Would the project substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding onor off-site. 
iii). Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

iv). Would the project impede or redirect flood flows?  D. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  E. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. ● The proposed project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
● The proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in 421
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 69
flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or, impede or redirect flood flows.
● The proposed project would risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
● The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project Applicant will be required to adhere to Chapter 17.93 – Erosion and Sediment Control, of the municipal code regulates erosion and sediment control. These regulations are outlined in Section 17.93.050 – Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The project Applicant will also be required to conform to Section

17.93.060 – Runoff Control of the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres, or smaller sites disturbing less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale, are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program. As a result, the construction impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Water used to control fugitive dust will be transported to the site via truck. No direct ground water extraction will occur. Furthermore, the construction and post-construction BMPs will address contaminants of concern from excess runoff, thereby preventing the contamination of local groundwater.

These BMP controls may include, but not be limited to, the following:
● Stabilization practices for all areas disturbed by construction and grading. ● Structural practices for all drainage/discharge locations. ● Stormwater management controls, including measures used to control pollutants occurring in stormwater discharges after construction activities are complete. ● Velocity dissipation devices to provide nonerosive flow conditions from the discharge point along the length of any outfall channel.
● Other controls, including waste disposal practices that prevent discharge of solid materials.

In addition, there would be no direct groundwater withdrawals associated with the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces? ● Less than Significant Impact.
422
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 70
The proposed project is located in a “Zone AE” flood hazard zone. Adelanto Municipal code 17.91.030 requires natural drainage courses to be preserved whenever practicable, consistent with the need to minimize flood and erosion hazards. Stream banks shall be stabilized with landscaping, rock, or other materials that harmonize with the natural setting and contain flows and control erosion.52 The predevelopment condition for the project site is undeveloped with almost no cover or vegetation. The existing drainage path of the site sheet flows to the central drainage easement. The runoff then flows northwesterly offsite. The site is divided into three distinct drainage areas, referred to as DA-1, DA-2, and DA-3 in the hydrology study. Each drainage area is graded to sheet flow runoff toward proposed curb and gutters, as well as v-gutters. The runoff will then be conveyed to drain inlets where the storm drain pipes will convey to each drainage area’s respective underground infiltration chambers. Overflow will flow into the central drainage easement.53
The existing peak runoff from the project area was calculated to be 2.64 cubic feet per second (cfs), and

2.1957 Ac-ft (95,645 cf) for the 2-year and 100-year storm, respectively. Pre-development conditions will be maintained through onsite detention of runoff. Detained runoff will be infiltrated into the ground.

Stormwater runoff storage will be provided via underground infiltration chambers. The storage volumes for the chambers are 6,124 cf, 7,729 cf, and 6,490 cf for DA-1, DA-2, and DA-3, respectively.54 As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
i). Would the project result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ● Less than Significant Impact
The project applicant will be required to abide by Adelanto’s City Ordinance Chapter 17.93 – Erosion and Sediment Control that requires all applicants for projects involving construction activities, regardless of size, to submit an erosion and sediment control plan ("ESCP") to the city for review and approval as mentioned in subsection A. As a result, the impact will be less than significant. ii). Would the project substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite ● Less than Significant Impact As mentioned previously, the proposed project is located in a “Zone AE” flood hazard zone. The project applicants are required to follow Adelanto municipal code 17.91.030 requiring measures to control runoff from construction sites consistent with NPDES imposed by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.

As a result, the impact will be less than significant.
52 Municode. Adelanto, CA. Chapter .91.030- Grading Guidelines Applicable to All Projects. Website Accessed November 23,2022. 53 Plump Engineering, Inc. Hydrology Study Adelanto Commercial Development SEC US-395 & Auburn Ave. Adelanto, CA 92301.

May 23, 2023.
54 Plump Engineering, Inc. Hydrology Study Adelanto Commercial Development SEC US-395 & Auburn Ave. Adelanto, CA 92301.

May 12, 2023.
423
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 71
iii). Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; ● Less than Significant Impact
As mentioned previously, the project’s location is located on a “Zone AE” flood hazard zone, adjacent to the proposed retail building on the west with flat grated inlet drains constructed to the north of the project site and south of the proposed retail building. The proposed used of the project will not contribute to runoff water and all zoning ordinances related to polluted runoff will be followed. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
55 iv). Would the project impede or redirect flood flows? ● Less than Significant Impact The proposed project’s location is located on a “Zone AE” flood hazard zone. As mentioned previously, the site would be designed so the proposed hardscape surfaces (the building and paved areas) will percolate into the landscape parkway areas. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

D. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ● Less than Significant Impact.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance maps obtained for the City of Adelanto, as mentioned previously, the proposed project site is located in a flood hazard zone, labeled as “Zone AE.” The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.56 The proposed project site is not located in an area that is subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami.

In addition, the project site is located inland approximately 70 miles from the Pacific Ocean and the project site would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

E. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ● No Impact.

The proposed project is required to be in compliance with Chapter 17.93 the City of Adelanto Municipal Code. Chapter 17.93 of the City of Adelanto Municipal Code is responsible for implementing the NPDES and MS4 stormwater runoff requirements. In addition, the project’s operation will not interfere with any groundwater management or recharge plan since there are no active groundwater management recharge activities on-site or in the vicinity. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that the project would not result in any significant impacts on hydrology and water quality with the implementation of the standard project design measures and conditions. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
55 Municode. Adelanto, CA. Chapter .91.030- Grading Guidelines Applicable to All Projects. Website Accessed November 23,2022. 56 Fema. Flood Zones. Website Accessed October 31, 2022. 424
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 72
EXHIBIT 3-4 WATER RESOURCES MAP
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
425
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 73

3.11 LAND USE & PLANNING
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project physically divide an established community?  B. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on mineral resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would physically divide an established community. ● The proposed project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project physically divide an established community? ● No Impact.

The area where the proposed development will be located is currently vacant. Other land uses and development located in the vicinity of the proposed project are outlined below:
● North of the project site: Auburn Avenue extends along the project’s northern side. Vacant undeveloped land extends along the proposed project’s north side. These parcels are zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).57
● East of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land extends along the proposed project’s east side.

These parcels are zones as Airport Development District (ADD). The Southern California Logistics Airport is located further east approximately 0.85 miles away.58 ● South of the project site: Vacant undeveloped land abuts the project’s southern site. This area is zoned as Airport Development District (ADD).59
57 Google Maps. Site Accessed October 26, 2022, and Adelanto Zoning Map, Site Accessed, October 26, 2022. 58 Ibid.
59 Google Maps. Site Accessed October 26, 2022, and Adelanto Zoning Map, Site Accessed, October 26, 2022. 426
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 74
● West of the project site: US-395 abuts the project side to the west. Vacant undeveloped land is also located west of the project site. This area is zoned as Mixed Use (MU) with Single Family Residential (R-S5) usage located further west.60
The granting of the requested entitlements and subsequent construction of the proposed project will not result in any expansion of the use beyond the current project site boundaries. In addition, all surrounding areas of the project site are vacant. As a result, the project will not lead to any division of an existing established neighborhood. Therefore, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ● No Impact.

The project site is located 1.2 miles west of the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA).61 The proposed project site is located outside of the designated Runway Protection Zone of Runway 17-35 (refer to Exhibit 2D of the Airport Land Use Plan [ALUP]). The project site is located well outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour area (refer to Exhibit 2H). The project site is located within a designated Compatibility Review Area 3 (refer to Exhibit 3B). For this project the proposed use is normally acceptable though it may be subject to restrictions for purposes of public safety.62 For this reason, the following mitigation measure is required in Section 3.9E:
● Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Adelanto that consultation has been made with the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) regarding the proposed project to ascertain whether there are any restrictions required regarding the proposed project/use with respect to its conformity with the Designated Compatibility Review Area 3.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Airport Development District. The proposed project involves the construction of a shopping center that would include a hotel, commercial retail uses, gas station and car wash. The City has initiate a Zoning Code amendment (revision to Appendix A) that would permit convenience stores, hotels, retailing uses, and gasoline retailers in the ADD zones. The proposed use of the project site would be compatible with the project site's land use and zoning designations. As a result, no impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that no impacts on land use and planning would result upon the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 60 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 61 Toll-Free Airline. San Bernardino County Public and Private Airports, California. 62 Coffman Associates, Inc. Southern California Logistics Airport. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. September 2008 427
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 75
EXHIBIT 3-4 LAND USE AND ZONING MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
428
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 76

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on mineral resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. ● The proposed project would result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) has developed mineral land classification maps and reports to assist in the protection and development of mineral resources. According to the SMARA, the following four mineral land use classifications are identified:
● Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
● Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.
● Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3): This land use classification refers to areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from the available data. Hilly or mountainous areas underlain by sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock types and lowland areas underlain by alluvial wash or fan material are often included in this category. Additional information about the quality of material in these areas could either upgrade the classification to MRZ-2 or downgrade it to MRZ-1.
● Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4): This land use classification refers to areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ● No Impact. 429
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 77
A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells on-site or located in the vicinity of the project site.63 The project site is not located in a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells located in the vicinity of the project site.64 The project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-3A), which means there may be significant mineral resources present.65As indicated previously, there are no active mineral extraction activities occurring on-site or in the adjacent properties.

As a result, no impacts would occur.

B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ● No Impact.

As previously mentioned, no mineral, oil, or energy extraction and/or generation activities are located within the project site. Moreover, the proposed project will not interfere with any resource extraction activity. Therefore, no impacts would result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to mineral resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the approval of the proposed project and its subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
63 California, State of. Department of Conservation. California Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-117.41448/34.56284/14. 64California, State of. Department of Conservation. California Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder. 65 California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map for the Adelanto Quadrangle. Map accessed December 12, 2021.
430
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 78

3.13 NOISE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

B. Would the project result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 
C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip oran airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on noise if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ● The proposed project would result in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.
● For a proposed project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Noise levels may be described using a number of methods designed to evaluate the “loudness” of a particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. The eardrum may rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of between 3.0 dB and 5.0 dB in the ambient noise level is considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. Noise level increases of 3.0 dB or less are not generally perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. Noise levels associated with common everyday activities are illustrated in Exhibit 3-5. 431
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 79
165
160
155
150
145
140 sonic boom
135
130
125 jet take off at 200 ft.
120
139 music in night club interior
110 motorcycle at 20 ft.
105 power mower
100
95 freight train at 50 ft.
90 food blender
85 electric mixer, light rail train horn
80 75
70 portable fan, roadway traffic at 50 ft.
65 60 dishwasher, air conditioner
55 50 normal conversation
45 refrigerator, light traffic at 100 ft.
40 35 library interior (quiet study area)
30 25
20 15
10 rustling leaves
5 0
Serious
Injury
Pain
Discomfort
Range of
Typical
Noise
Levels
Threshold
of
Hearing
EXHIBIT 3-5 NOISE SOURCES AND LOUDNESS SCALE
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
432
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 80

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The primary sources of noise in the Adelanto planning area are freeways and roadways, SCLA aircraft operations, and stationary sources. Future sources of noise generated on-site will include noise from vehicles traveling to and from the project and noise emanating from back-up alarms, building equipment noise (air conditioning units, and other equipment), and other noises typically associated with commercial development. Noise sensitive land uses in the area are shown in Exhibit 3-5. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. Noise levels associated with common everyday activities are shown in Exhibit 3-6. The eardrum may rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of between 3.0 dB and 5.0 dB in the ambient noise level is considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. In other words, increases in ambient noise levels of 3.0 dB or less are not generally perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities.66 The closest noise sensitive land use is located approximately 400 feet to the northwest of the project site. As a result, the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels.

The only short-term construction noise will be limited to the grading during the site preparation phases and the erection of the new buildings. Nevertheless, the following mitigation will be required in order to further reduce construction noise:
● The Applicant must ensure that the contractors use construction equipment that includes working mufflers and other sound suppression equipment as a means to reduce machinery noise.

Adherence to the aforementioned mitigation measures will reduce the potential noise impacts to levels that are less than significant.

B. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The construction of the proposed project will result in the generation of vibration and noise, though the vibrations and noise generated during the project’s construction will not adversely impact the nearby residential sensitive receptors. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 vibration velocity level (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximately dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors causes most perceptible indoor vibration. Construction activities may result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the types of equipment, the characteristics of the soil, and the age and construction of nearby buildings. 66 Bugliarello, et. al. The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975. 433
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 81
The operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibrations associated with construction activities using modern construction methods and equipment rarely reach the levels that result in damage to nearby buildings though vibration related to construction activities may be discernible in areas located near the construction site. A possible exception is in older buildings where special care must be taken to avoid damage. Table 3- 4 summarizes the levels of vibration and the usual effect on people and buildings. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has guidelines for vibration levels from construction related to their activities and recommends that the maximum peak-particle-velocity (PPV) levels remain below 0.05 inches per second at the nearest structures. PPV refers to the movement within the ground of molecular particles and not surface movement. Vibration levels above 0.5 inches per second have the potential to cause architectural damage to normal dwellings. The U.S. DOT also states that vibration levels above 0.015 inches per second (in/sec) are sometimes perceptible to people, and the level at which vibration becomes an irritation to people is 0.64 inches per second.

Table 3-4
Common Effects of Construction Vibration
Peak Particle
Velocity (in/sec) Effects on Humans Effects on Buildings <0.005 Imperceptible No effect on buildings

0.005 to 0.015 Barely perceptible No effect on buildings

0.02 to 0.05 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy occupants of nearby buildings No effect on buildings

0.1 to 0.5 Vibrations considered unacceptable for persons exposed to continuous or long-term vibration.

Minimal potential for damage to weak or sensitive
structures

0.5 to 1.0 Vibrations considered bothersome by most
people, tolerable if short-term in length
Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural
damage to buildings with plastered ceilings and
walls. Some risk to ancient monuments and ruins.

1.0 to 2.0
Vibrations considered unpleasant by most people.

U.S. Bureau of Mines data indicates that blasting
vibration in this range will not harm most
buildings. Most construction vibration limits
are in this range.
>3.0 Vibration is unpleasant Potential for architectural damage and possible minor structural damage
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Typical levels from vibration generally do not have the potential for any structural damage. Some construction activities, such as pile driving and blasting, can produce vibration levels that may have the potential to damage some vibration sensitive structures if performed within 50 to 100 feet of the structure.

The reason that normal construction vibration does not result in structural damage has to do with several issues, including the frequency vibration and magnitude of construction related vibration. Unlike earthquakes, which produce vibration at very low frequencies and have a high potential for structural damage, most construction vibration is in the mid- to upper- frequency range, and therefore, have a lower potential for structural damage.

The project’s implementation will require boring for the installation of three USTS. The commercial building will be constructed over a shallow foundation that will extend no more than three to four feet bgs.

The use of shallow foundations precludes the use of pile drivers or any auger type equipment. However, other vibration generating equipment may be used on-site during construction. As stated above, the project will require the use of excavators, loaders, bulldozers, and haul trucks. 434
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 82
Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels as shown in Table 3-4. Although the table gives one level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities. The data in Table 3-4 does provide a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Based on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, a vibration level of 102 VdB (vibration decibels, or 0.5 inches per second [in/sec]) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Vibration resulting from the operation of construction vehicles may affect the residents located north of the project site. Strict adherence to the mitigation provided below will reduce the number of units and residents potentially affected by ground-borne vibration generated by empty haul trucks:
● Construction vehicles will be prohibited from travelling on local streets in the residential areas. All haul trucks must travel either northbound or southbound on Amethyst Road.

Adherence to the above-mentioned mitigation will reduce potential vibration impacts to levels that are less than significant. Once operational, the proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne noise.

The project will be required to adhere to all pertinent City noise control regulations. In addition, the cumulative traffic associated with the proposed project will not be great enough to result in a measurable or perceptible increase in traffic noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0 dBA or greater).

Once in operation, the proposed project will not significantly raise ground borne noise levels. Slight increases in ground-borne noise levels could occur during the construction phase. The limited duration of construction activities and the City’s construction-related noise control requirements will further reduce the potential impacts. In addition, the above required mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant.

C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ● No Impact.

The project site is located 1.2 miles west of the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA).67 The proposed project site is located outside of the designated Runway Protection Zone of Runway 17-35 (refer to Exhibit 2D of the Airport Land Use Plan [ALUP]). The project site is located well outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour area (refer to Exhibit 2H). The project site is located within a designated Compatibility Review Area 3 (refer to Exhibit 3B). For this project the proposed use is normally acceptable though it may be subject to restrictions for purposes of public safety.68 For this reason, the following mitigation measure is required in Section 3.9E. No noise mitigation is required. As a result, no impacts would occur. 67 Toll-Free Airline. San Bernardino County Public and Private Airports, California. 68 Coffman Associates, Inc. Southern California Logistics Airport. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. September 2008 435
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 83

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation will be required in order to further reduce construction noise:

Noise Mitigation Measure No. 1. The Applicant must ensure that the contractors use construction equipment that includes working mufflers and other sound suppression equipment as a means to reduce machinery noise.

To ensure the project’s potential operational noise impacts are mitigated, the following mitigation measures must be implemented:

Noise Mitigation Measure No. 2. Loitering in the parking areas with attendant loud noise (radios, car noise, etc.) will not be permitted.
436
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 84
EXHIBIT 3-6 NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
437
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 85

3.14 POPULATION & HOUSING

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on population and housing if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
● The proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ● No Impact.

Growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped or rural area. Growth-inducing impacts include the following:
● New development in an area presently undeveloped and economic factors which may influence development. The site is currently undeveloped and relatively undisturbed with the exception of vehicular activity occurring over the site. Land uses surrounding the property on the north, south, and east are designated as Airport Development District (ADD) and Mixed Use (MU) to the west. ● Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities. Future roadway and infrastructure connections will serve the proposed project site only. Roadways to the project site need improvement.
● Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. The installation of any new utility lines will not lead to subsequent offsite development since these utility connections will serve the site only.

At present, existing water sewer connections will need to be extended to serve the project site. The project’s potential utility impacts are analyzed in Section 3.19.

Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

438
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 86
● Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc.). The project’s increase in demand for utility services can be accommodated without the construction or expansion of landfills, water treatment plants, or wastewater treatment plants. The project’s potential utility impacts are further analyzed in Section 3.19.
● The removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere. The site does not contain any housing units. As a result, no replacement housing will be required. ● Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services. The project will result in an increase in employment which can be accommodated by the local labor market but will not result in a change in population growth.
● Short-term growth-inducing impacts related to the project’s construction. The project will result in temporary employment during the construction phase.

The newly established roads and existing utility lines will serve the project site only and will not extend into undeveloped areas. The proposed project will not result in any unplanned growth. As a result, no impacts will result.

B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ● No Impact.

The project site is vacant and undisturbed. This property and surrounding areas have a General Plan and zoning designations of Airport Development District (ADD) and Mixed Use (MU). No housing units will be permitted, and none will be displaced as a result of the proposed project’s implementation. Therefore, no impacts would result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
439
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 87

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with Fire protection? 
ii). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with Police protection? 
iii). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with Schools? 
iv). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with Parks? 
v). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with Other public facilities? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on public services if it results in any of the following:
● 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: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

The City of Adelanto contracts fire protection services with the San Bernardino County Fire Department from two fire stations located within the City limits with the closest being located 2.6 miles to the southwest. The Fire Department currently reviews all new development plans. The proposed project will be required to conform to all fire protection and prevention requirements, including, but not limited to, building setbacks, emergency access, and fire flow (or the flow rate of water that is available for extinguishing fires). The proposed project would only place an incremental demand on fire services since the project will be constructed with strict adherence to all pertinent building and fire codes. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement all pertinent Fire Code Standards including the installation of fire hydrants and sprinkler systems inside the buildings. Furthermore, the project will be reviewed by City and County Fire officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. As a result, the potential impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant.
ii). Would the project have police protection? Less than Significant Impact.

Law enforcement services within the City are provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department which serves the community from one police station located approximately one mile to the southeast of the project site. The proposed project will also be required to comply with the County and City security requirements. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant. iii). Would the project be near schools? Less than Significant Impact.

The nearest school to the project site is Westside Park Elementary School located 0.79 miles to the southwest. Due to the nature of the proposed project, no direct enrollment impacts regarding school services will occur. The proposed project will not directly increase demand for school services. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
iv).Would the project be near parks? Less than Significant Impact.

The nearest park to the project site is Westside Park, located approximately 0.84 miles to the southwest.

The proposed project will not result in any local increase in residential development (directly or indirectly) that could potentially impact the local recreational facilities. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.
69 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 441
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 89
v). Would the project have other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project will not create direct local population growth that could potentially create demand for other governmental service. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of public service impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required with the implementation of the proposed project. 442
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 90
EXHIBIT 3-7 PUBLIC SERVICES
SOURCE: CITY OF ADELANTO
443
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 91

3.16 RECREATION
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

B. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on recreation if it results in any of the following:
● 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.
● The proposed project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ● No Impact.

Due to the use of the proposed project, no significant increase in the use of City parks and recreational facilities is anticipated to occur. Westside Park is located approximately 0.84 miles to the southwest of the project site. The proposed project would not result in any improvements that would potentially significantly physically alter any public park facilities and services. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

B. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ● No Impact.

As previously indicated, the implementation of the proposed project would not affect any existing parks and recreational facilities in the City. No such facilities are located adjacent to the project site. As a result, no impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to parks and recreation indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. 444
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 92

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

B. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 subdivision (b)? 
C. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 
D. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on transportation and circulation if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. ● The proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
● The proposed project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). ● The proposed project would result in inadequate emergency access.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project were estimated for the weekday commuter AM and PM peak hours, as well as over a 24-hour daily period, using trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition. The ITE document contains trip rates for a variety of land uses which have been derived based on traffic counts conducted at existing sites throughout California and the United States. For this project, a traffic study was conducted by David Evans and Associates Inc, attached as Appendix D. The trip generation rates for the site including Convenience Store/Gas Station sub-category VFP (9-15) (LU 945), Small Office Building (LU 712), Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 445
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 93
(LU 934), Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - sub-category Supermarket - Yes (LU 821), Automated Car Wash (LU 948), Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (LU 822), and Hotel (LU 310) When considering the pass-by adjustment, the total pass-by ADT will be 0 trips per day and the pass-by PM peak hour trips will be 0 PM peak hour trips. When considering the aforementioned pass-by adjustments, the total “adjusted” ADT trip generation will be 9,786 ADT (9,786 ADT – 0 pass-by ADT = 9,786 ADT) and the total PM peak hour trips will be 526 PM peak hour trips (949 PM peak hour trips – 423 pass-by PM peak hour trips = 526 PM peak hour trips). 70 Table 3-5
Project Trip Generation
Use Size/Quantity Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out total
1 Convenience Market/Gas Station - VFP (16-24) Land Use Category (ITE 945) Per 1,000 Sq. Ft GLA
5,886
1,283.38 45.68 45.68 91.35 39.48 39.48 78.95
Trips 7,554 269 269 538 232 233 466
Internal Trips (10%) 756 27 27 54 23 24 47
Adjusted Trips 6,798 242 242 484 209 209 4189
Pass-By Trips (76%, 75%) 0 184 184 368 157 157 314
Primary Trips (24%, 25%) 6,798 58 58 116 52 52 104
2 Small Office Building Land Use Category (ITE 712)
Rates (per 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA)
956

14.39 1.37 0.30 1.67 0.73 1.43 2.16
Trips 14 2 1 2 1 2 3
3 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window - Land Use Category (ITE 934) Rates per 1,000 Sq. Ft GLA
3,400
467.48 22.75 21.86 44.61 17.18 15.85 33.03
Trips 1,590 78 74 152 58 54 112
Internal Trips (10%) 159 8 7 15 6 5 11
Adjusted Trips 1,431 70 67 137 52 49 101
Pass-By Trips (50%, 55%) 0 35 34 69 29 27 56
Primary Trips (50%, 45%) 1,431 35 33 68 23 22 45
4 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) -Supermarket- Yes Land Use Category (ITE 821) 3 Buildings Rates per 1,000 Sq. Ft GLA
36,822

94.49 2.19 1.34 3.53 4.33 4.7 9.03
Trips 3,480 81 49 130 160 173 333
Internal Trips (10%) 348 8 5 13 16 17 33
Adjusted Trips 3,132 73 44 117 144 156 300
Pass-By Trips (0%, 40%) 0 0 0 0 78 78 156
Primary Trips (100%, 60%) 3,132 73 44 117 86 94 180
70 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Commercial Development APN 0459-053-56, 57, 58, 08 Prepared for Adelanto, California. May 23, 2023.
446
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 94
Use Size/Quantity Daily
AM PM
In Out Total In Out total
5 Automated Car Wash Land Use Category (ITE 948)
Rates (per Car Wash Tunnels)
2 0 0 0 0 38.75 38.75 77.5
Trips 0 0 0 0 78 78 155
Internal Trips (10%) 0 0 0 0 8 8 16
Adjusted Trips 0 0 0 0 70 70 140
6 Hotel Land Use Category (ITE 310)
Rates (per Rooms)
100

7.99 0.26 0.2 0.46 0.3 0.29 0.59
Trips 799 26 20 46 30 29 59
Internal Trips (10%) 80 3 2 5 3 3 6
Adjusted Trips 719 23 18 41 27 26 53
Total Adjusted Project Trips 12,094 410 372 781 503 512 1,015 Total Pass-By Trips 0 219 218 437 244 246 490
Total Primary Trips 12,094 191 154 344 259 266 525
Background conditions represent the project’s opening year of 2024 but without the project and includes growth in ambient traffic from regional and local development equaling 3.5 percent annually. In background conditions the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. In background plus project conditions the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue operates at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours with significant increases in delay for the worst stop-controlled movement (westbound left turn). With the implementation of the proposed intersection improvements the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue would operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours.
71 Future year 2040 conditions represent a long-range
forecast for addressing the cumulative impacts of regional growth in traffic as determined through land use and traffic projections from the San Bernardino Countywide Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM). In the future conditions the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour for the worst stop-controlled movement (westbound left turn).

In future plus project conditions the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue operates at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. With the implementation of the proposed intersection improvements the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue operates at LOS B during the peak hours.72 The analysis of potential impacts related to traffic and circulation indicated that the following mitigation measures would be required:
71 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Commercial Development APN 0459-053-56, 57, 58, 08 Prepared for Adelanto, California. May 23, 2023.
72 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, Proposed Commercial Development APN 0459-053-56, 57, 58, 08 Prepared for Adelanto, California. May 23, 2023.
447
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 95
● The project will be required to install a traffic signal with northbound-southbound protected left turn phases, at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue concurrent with the construction of the project.
● The project will be required to construct site and frontage improvements. a. Within the existing Highway 395 right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the northbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. In the conceptual geometric plan, a Class II bike lane is provided between the right turn lane and the through lane. b. Within the existing Auburn Avenue right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the westbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 2. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the westbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. c. Construct Auburn Avenue east of Highway 395 to include curb, gutter, two-way left turn lane, and sidewalk and driveways as shown on the conceptual geometric plan.
● Improvements at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue include configuring the southbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane.

B. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? ● Less than Significant Impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)(2) focuses on impacts that result from certain transportation projects. The proposed project is not a transportation project. As a result, no impacts on this issue will result. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)(3) and (b)(4) focuses on the evaluation of a project’s VMT. As previously mentioned in Subsection A, the proposed project will not create a significant amount of traffic in the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project will not result in a conflict or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) of the CEQA Guidelines and no impacts will occur. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should also be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The project site is located within 50 feet of Highway 395.

The City of Adelanto has also adopted the following VMT thresholds utilizing the San Bernardino County Travel Demand Model (SBTAM) as its preferred methodology to measure average trip lengths and the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) as its preferred method to calculate greenhouse gas emissions so as to establish the 3,000 MTCO2e as a threshold for determining new VMT development threshold with a less than significant impact to the environment. As indicated herein in Section 3.8, the Greenhouse gas emissions will be below this threshold. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant. 448
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 96
C. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Access to the project site would be provided by three improved roads that will be located along the site’s north side along Auburn Avenue. The proposed project will not expose future drivers to dangerous intersections or sharp curves and the proposed project will not introduce incompatible equipment or vehicles to the adjacent roads. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

D. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? ● No Impact.

The proposed project would not affect emergency access to any adjacent parcels. At no time during construction will adjacent streets be completely closed to traffic. All construction staging must occur onsite. As a result, no impacts are associated with the proposed project’s implementation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to traffic and circulation indicated that the following mitigation measures would be required:

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Transportation). The project will be required to construct site and frontage improvements. a. Within the existing Highway 395 right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the northbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. In the conceptual geometric plan, a Class II bike lane is provided between the right turn lane and the through lane. b. Within the existing Auburn Avenue right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the westbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 2. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the westbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. c. Construct Auburn Avenue east of Highway 395 to include curb, gutter, two-way left turn lane, and sidewalk and driveways as shown on the conceptual geometric plan.

Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Transportation). Improvements at the intersection of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue include configuring the southbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. 449
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19 & LDP 22-15
INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 97

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i) Would the project have listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

ii). Would the project have resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American.


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on tribal cultural resources if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). ● The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
450
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 98

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center development in the City of Adelanto. The proposed project would total five individual parcels (subdivided from the current four parcels) totaling 11.81 acres. Parcel A would be a 5,866 square foot convenience store with a 956 square foot upper-level office with 44 parking spaces. Parcel B would be a 3,400 square feet drive-thru restaurant with 39 parking spaces. Parcel C would be a 10,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 42 parking spaces, a 16,702 square foot supermarket with 80 parking spaces, and another 9,620 square foot multi-tenant retail building with 39 parking spaces. Parcel D would be a 5,577 square feet automated carwash with 6 parking spaces. Parcel E would be a 68,054 square foot three-story hotel (100 rooms) with 158 parking spaces.73 A Tribal Resource is defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:
● Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. ● A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ● A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. ● A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms to the criteria of subdivision (a).

Adherence to the standard condition presented in Subsection B under Cultural Resources will minimize potential impacts to levels that are less than significant. The project site is located on recognized Yuhaaviatam/Maarenga’yam (Serrano) ancestral territory.74 The site is also within an area of the City that has been disturbed due to adjacent development and there is a limited likelihood that artifacts would be encountered. The proposed project’s construction would involve shallow excavation for the installation of building footings, utility lines, three USTs, and other underground infrastructure. Ground disturbance would involve grading and earth-clearing activities for the installation of the grass and landscaping and other on-site improvements. In addition, the proposed project area is not located within an area that is typically associated with habitation sites, foraging areas, ceremonial sites, or burials. Nevertheless, 73 Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 74Native Land.ca. Website Accessed October 26, 2022.
451
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 99
mitigation was provided in the previous subsection. With the implementation of the mitigation measure found in subsection B of Cultural Resources, impacts would be reduced to levels that would be less than significant.
i). Would the listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), ● No Impact.

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. The project site is not listed in the Register. As a result, no impacts would occur.
ii). Would the project have a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms to the criteria of subdivision (a). As a result, there will be a less than significant impact with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are required as a means to reduce potential tribal cultural resources impacts to levels that are less than significant:

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Adelanto that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist has been retained by the Project Applicant to conduct monitoring of excavation activities and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments at or below four (4) feet below ground surface and shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon 452
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 100 exposure and examination by qualified archaeologist/paleontologist personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino, California, is required for significant discoveries. The archaeologist/paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Adelanto prior to building finalization. 453
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 101

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

B. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

C. Would the project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

D. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 
E. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on utilities if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
● The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. ● The proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. ● The proposed project would generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• The proposed project would negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
● The proposed project would comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
454
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 102

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ● Less than Significant Impact.

There are no existing water or wastewater treatment plants, electric power plants, telecommunications facilities, natural gas facilities, or stormwater drainage infrastructure located on-site. Therefore, the project’s implementation will not require the relocation of any of the aforementioned facilities. The project site is currently undeveloped and undisturbed. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant.

B. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Adelanto Water Department (AWD) provides water service and wastewater service to approximately 27,139 residents of Adelanto. The AWD employs a staff of twelve to manage and maintain the Department and its water resources. The Director of Public Utilities and the five-member Public Utilities Authority are responsible for providing adequate water services to the City. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City is projected to have an adequate supply of water to meet the increase in demand. In addition, the City is projected to have enough water to meet demand during a single dry year, and a multiple dry year scenario.75 The anticipated water demand (39,789 gallons/day) for the proposed project is summarized in Table 3-6, The applicant will need a letter from the Adelanto Water Department (VWD) in order to ensure water can be served to the site. The proposed project will be required to implement all pertinent water conservation measures. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

Table 3-6
Projected Water Consumption
Project Element Consumption Rate Project Consumption
Office (956 sq. ft.) 0.3 gals./day/sq. ft. 287 gals./day Automated Carwash (15 gals./assuming 70 cars) 15 gals/car 1,050 gals /day Convenience Store (5,886 sq. ft.) 0.15 gals./day/sq. ft. 883 gals./day Shopping Center (36,822 sq. ft.) 0.5 gals./day/sq. ft. 18,411 gals. /day Drive Thru Restaurant (3,400 sq. ft.) 0.12 gals./day/sq. ft. 408 gals. /day Hotel (100 Rooms) 187.50 gals./day/Room. 18,750 gals. /day Total 39,789 gals./day
Source: Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) 75 City of Adelanto. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Report dated June 22, 2016 . 455
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 103 C. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Table 3-7 indicates the proposed projects anticipated effluent generation rate. The City operates a 1.5- million-gallons-per-day activated sludge wastewater treatment facility through an operations and maintenance contract with PERC Water Corporation. In addition to operations, PERC performs routine collection system cleaning, sewage spill response and cleanup, and industrial sewage pretreatment program. The City is currently constructing a 2.5-million-gallons-per-day upgrade that will increase wastewater treatment capabilities to 4.0 million gallons per day and produce treated water that can be used for lawn/public parks irrigation, construction and dust control and other beneficial uses. As a result, the impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Table 3-7
Projected Effluent Generation
Project Element Generation Rate Project Generation
Office (956 sq. ft.) 0.20 gals. /day/sq. ft. 191 gals. /day Automated Carwash (70 cars/day) 0.15 gals/car 10.5 gals. /day Convenience Store (5,886 sq. ft.) 0.10 gals. /day/sq. ft. 589 gals. /day Shopping Center (36,822 sq. ft.) 0.33 gals. /day/sq. ft. 12,152 gals. /day Drive Thru Restaurant (3,400 sq. ft.) 0.08 gals. /day/sq. ft. 272 gals. /day Hotel (100 Rooms) 125 gals. /day/Room 12,500 gals. /day Total 25,714 gals. /day
Source: Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) D. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Table 3-8 indicates the proposed projects anticipated solid waste generation rate. The City of Adelanto utilizes the Adelanto Landfill for solid waste disposal. This landfill is operated by the Solid Waste Management Division of the San Bernardino County Public Works Department in accordance with a Waste Disposal Agreement between the City and the County. The Adelanto landfill currently operates on 67-acres of a total 491-acre property with a capacity of 1,180 tons per day. With a planned expansion, as summarized in a Joint Technical Document prepared by the Solid Waste Management Division, the overall capacity will rise to 3,000 tons per day by expanding from a 67-acre operation to an approximately 341-acre operation.

The planned expansion and additional daily acceptance capabilities, as well as the required construction waste management plan enforced during construction will accommodate the proposed solid waste generation. Other conventional solid waste may be handled by commercial waste disposal companies. As a result, the potential impacts would be less than significant. 456
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 104 Table 3-8
Projected Solid Waste Generation
Project Element Generation Rate Project Generation
Office (956 sq. ft.) 6 lbs./day/1,000 sq. ft. 5.7 lbs./day Automated Carwash (5,577 sq. ft.) 42 lbs./day/1,000 sq. ft. 234.2 lbs./day Convenience Store (5,886 sq. ft.) 42 lbs./day/1,000 sq. ft. 247.2 lbs./day Shopping Center (36,822 sq. ft.) 6 lbs./day/1,000 sq. ft. 221 bs./day Drive Thru Restaurant (3,400 sq. ft.) 42 lbs./day/1,000 sq. ft. 143 lbs./day Hotel (100 Rooms) 6 lbs./day/room 600 lbs./day
Total 1,451 lbs./day
Source: Steeno Design Studios. Highway 395 & Auburn Ave Adelanto Commercial Development, Site Plan. May 2023. (Exhibit 2-5) E. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ● No Impact.

The proposed project, like all other development in Adelanto and San Bernardino County, would be required to adhere to City and County ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of utilities impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required. 457
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19 & LDP 22-15
INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 105

3.20 WILDFIRE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 
B. Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

C. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

D. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND METHODOLOGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on wildfire risk and hazards if it results in any of the following:
● The proposed project would, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
● The proposed project would, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
● The proposed project would, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
● The proposed project would, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
458
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 106

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ● No Impact.

Vehicular access would be provided by new driveway connections along US-395. Surface streets that will be improved at construction will serve the project site and adjacent area. Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve the closure or alteration of any existing evacuation routes that would be important in the event of a wildfire. At no time during construction will adjacent streets be completely closed to traffic. All construction staging must occur on-site. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ● No Impact.

The project site is located in the midst of an undeveloped area. The proposed project may be exposed to particulate emissions generated by wildland fires in the mountains (the site is located approximately 20 miles north and northwest of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains). However, the potential impacts would not be exclusive to the project site since criteria pollutant emissions from wildland fires may affect the entire City as well as the surrounding cities and unincorporated county areas. As a result, no impacts would occur.

C. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ● No Impact.

The project site is not located in an area that is classified as a moderate fire risk severity within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and therefore will not require the installation of specialized infrastructure such as fire roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources. As a result, no impacts would occur.

D. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ● No Impact.

There is no risk from wildfire within the project site or the surrounding area given the project site’s distance from any area that may be subject to a wildfire event. In addition, the site is not located within a moderate fire risk and state responsibility area. Therefore, the project will not expose future employees to flooding or landslides facilitated by runoff flowing down barren and charred slopes. As a result, no impacts would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of wildfires impacts indicated that less than significant impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required. 459
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 107 EXHIBIT 3-7 FHSZ MAP
SOURCE: CALFIRE
460
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19 & LDP 22-15
INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PAGE 108

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 
C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment:

A. The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As indicated in Section 3.1 through

3.20, the proposed project will not result in any significant unmitigable environmental impacts.

B. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

The environmental impacts will not lead to a cumulatively significant impact on any of the issues analyzed herein.

C. The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As indicated in Section 3.1 through 3.20, the proposed project will not result in any significant unmitigable environmental impacts. 461
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 109 SECTION 4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1 FINDINGS
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project is not expected to have significant adverse environmental impacts. The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING
In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision-maker coincidental to the approval of a Negative Declaration. These findings shall be incorporated as part of the decision-maker’s findings of fact, in response to AB-3180 and in compliance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code. In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Adelanto can make the following additional findings:

The following mitigation measures have been incorporated herein to further reduce the potential air quality impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 1. The Applicant shall prepare and submit to the MDAQMD, prior to commencing earth-moving activity, a dust control plan that describes all applicable dust control measures that will be implemented at the project; Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 2. The Applicant shall ensure that signage, compliant with Rule 403 Attachment, is erected at each project site entrance not later than the commencement of construction.

Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 4. All perimeter fencing shall be wind fencing or the equivalent, to a minimum of four feet of height or the top of all perimeter fencing. The owner/operator shall maintain the wind fencing as needed to keep it intact and remove windblown dropout. This wind fencing 462
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 110 requirement may be superseded by local ordinance, rule or project-specific biological mitigation prohibiting wind fencing.

The analysis of biological impacts determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project’s impacts to levels that would be less than significant.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. Prior to grading or any other ground-disturbing activity, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey must be conducted in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, State of California Natural Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, May 7, 2012, by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the beginning of project activities. A secondary survey must be conducted by a qualified biologist within 24 hours prior to the beginning of project construction to determine if the project site contains burrowing owl or sign thereof to avoid any potential impacts to the species. The surveys shall include 100 percent coverage of the project site. If both surveys reveal no burrowing owls are present or sign thereof, no additional actions related to this measure are required and a letter shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the survey. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW prior to construction. If occupied active burrows or sign thereof are found within the development footprint during the preconstruction clearance survey, Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 3 shall also apply.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 3. If active burrows or signs thereof are found within the development footprint during the pre-construction clearance surveys, site-specific non-disturbance buffer zones shall be established by the qualified biologist shall be no less than 300 feet If determined appropriate, a smaller buffer may be established by the qualified biologist following monitoring and assessments of the project’s effects on the burrowing owls. If it is not possible to avoid active burrows, passive relocation shall be implemented if a qualified biologist has determined there are no nesting 463
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 111 owls and/or juvenile owls are no longer dependent on the burrows. A qualified biologist, in coordination with the applicant and the City, shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) for CDFW review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities onsite and proposed mitigation for permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat consistent with the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Desert Tortoise is a state-threatened, proposed endangered species, as such CDFW is concerned that the ISMND lacks a mitigation measure for pre-construction desert tortoise surveys, because the Project site is within the desert tortoise range and contains suitable habitat for desert tortoise: creosote bush scrub. To address potential direct/indirect impacts to desert tortoise, CDFW recommends the inclusion of the following mitigation measure prior to the City adopting the ISMND:

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 5. Prior to construction, a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a protocol level presence or absence survey within the Project area and 50-foot buffer no more than 48 hours prior to Project activities and after any pause in Project activities lasting 30 days or more during desert tortoise active season (April to May or September to October), in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2019 desert tortoise survey methodology. The survey shall utilize perpendicular survey routes and 100-percent visual coverage for desert tortoise and their sign. Results of the survey shall be submitted to CDFW. If the survey confirms absence, the CDFW approved biologist shall ensure desert tortoise do not enter the Project area. If the survey confirms presence, the Project proponent shall submit to CDFW for review and approval a desert tortoise-specific avoidance plan detailing the protective avoidance measures to be implemented to ensure complete avoidance of take (California Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines “take” as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) to desert tortoise. If complete avoidance cannot be achieved, CDFW recommends Project proponent not undertake Project activities and Project activities be postponed until appropriate authorization (i.e., CESA ITP under Fish and Game Code section 2081) is obtained.
464
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 112 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 6. Prior to project implementation, and during the appropriate season, the City shall conduct botanical field survey following protocols set forth in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The surveys shall be conducted by a CDFW-approved botanist(s) experienced in conducting floristic botanical field surveys, knowledgeable of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification, familiar with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant plants, and familiar with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting. The botanical field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of year when plants will both be evident and identifiable (usually, during flowering or fruiting) and, in a manner, which maximizes the likelihood of locating special status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. Botanical field surveys shall be conducted floristic in nature, meaning that every plant taxon that occurs in the project area is identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. If any rare plants or sensitive vegetation communities are identified, the City shall either avoid the occurrence, with an appropriate buffer, or mitigate the loss of the occurrence through the purchase of mitigation credits from a CDFW-approved bank or land acquisition and conservation at a minimum 3:1 (replacement-to-impact) ratio. Note that a higher ratio may be warranted if the proposed mitigation lands are located far away from the Project site (i.e., within a separate watershed) or is not occupied by or available to special status species. If the Project has the potential to impact a State-listed species, the City should apply for a California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 8. Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Adelanto shall develop a plan with measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of pesticides used in cannabis cultivation, including fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. The plan should include, but is not limited to, the following elements: (1) Proper use, storage, and disposal of pesticides, in accordance with manufacturers’ directions and warnings. (2) Avoidance of pesticide use where toxic runoff may pass into waters of the State, including ephemeral streams. (3) Avoidance of pesticides that cannot legally be used on cannabis in the state of California, as set forth by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. (4) Avoidance of anticoagulant rodenticides and rodenticides with “flavorizers.” (5) Avoidance of sticky/glue traps. (6) Inclusion of alternatives to toxic rodenticides, such as sanitation (removing food sources like pet food, cleaning up refuse, and securing garbage in sealed containers) and physical barriers.

Biological Resources Mitigation Measure No. 10. The following mitigation measures are applicable to the Joshua Trees that are present on the project site.

1. The Joshua trees will be retained in place or replanted somewhere on the site where they can remain in perpetuity or will be transplanted to an off-site area approved by the city where they 465
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 113 can remain in perpetuity. Joshua trees which are deemed not suitable for transplanting will be cut-up and discarded as per City requirements.

The following mitigation measures will be required to address potential cultural resources impacts:

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and 76 RCA Associates, Inc. Protected Plant Preservation Plan. Report dated May 24, 2022. 466
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 114 graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Adelanto prior to building finalization.

The following mitigation measures will be required to address potential paleontological resources impacts:

Paleontological Mitigation Measure No. 3. Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage, such as the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino, California, is required for significant discoveries. The archaeologist/paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to initiation of mitigation activities.

The following mitigation will be required in order to further reduce construction noise:

To ensure the project’s potential operational noise impacts are mitigated, the following mitigation measures must be implemented:

Noise Mitigation Measure No. 2. Loitering in the parking areas with attendant loud noise (radios, car noise, etc.) will not be permitted.

The analysis of potential impacts related to traffic and circulation indicated that the following mitigation measures would be required:

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Transportation). The project will be required to construct site and frontage improvements. a. Within the existing Highway 395 right of way along the project’s frontage, configure 467
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 115 the northbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 1 included in the Traffic Study. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on the northbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. In the conceptual geometric plan, a Class II bike lane is provided between the right turn lane and the through lane. b. Within the existing Auburn Avenue right of way along the project’s frontage, configure the westbound approach as shown on the conceptual geometric plan in Figure ES- 2. The configuration should accommodate a left turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane on the westbound approach of Highway 395 and Auburn Avenue. c. Construct Auburn Avenue east of Highway 395 to include curb, gutter, two-way left turn lane, and sidewalk and driveways as shown on the conceptual geometric plan.

The following mitigation measures are required as a means to reduce potential tribal cultural resources impacts to levels that are less than significant:

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 2. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed, very old alluvial fan sediments at or below four (4) feet below ground surface and shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The archaeologist/paleontologist monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified archaeologist/paleontologist personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 4. A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Adelanto prior to building finalization. 468
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PAGE 116 469
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 117 SECTION 5. REFERENCES

5.1 PREPARERS
Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning
2211 S Hacienda Boulevard, Suite 107
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
(626) 336-0033
Raymond Wen, Project Planner
Marc Blodgett, Project Principal
Alice Ye, Business Developer

5.2 REFERENCES
The references that were consulted have been identified using footnotes. 470
CITY OF ADELANTO ● INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 INITIAL STUDY ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 118 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
471
CITY OF ADELANTO ● MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 MMRP ● PAGE 1
DRAFT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH) NO. 2023070019

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
US-395 & AUBURN AVENUE
CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607

ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA
APNS 0459-053-56, 0459-053-57, 0459-053-58, & 0459-053-08 LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF ADELANTO

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
11600 AIR EXPRESSWAY
ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA 92301
REPORT PREPARED BY:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745
SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 ADLT 083
472
CITY OF ADELANTO ● MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 MMRP ● PAGE 2
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
473
CITY OF ADELANTO ● MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM US-395 & AUBURN AVE. ● CUP 22-19, LDP 22-15, & TPM 20607 MMRP ● PAGE 3

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION & FINDINGS
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision-maker coincidental to the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which relates to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. These findings shall be incorporated as part of the decision-maker’s findings of fact, in response to AB-3180 and in compliance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code. In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the City of Santa Fe Springs can make the following additional findings:
● A mitigation reporting or monitoring program will be required; and, ● An accountable enforcement agency or monitoring agency shall be identified for the mitigation measures adopted as part of the decision-maker’s final determination.

Adelanto City CouncilOctober 11, 2023

Adelanto City Council
October 11, 2023